The Trump administration is expected to consider in with briefs prior to a midnight filing deadline.
They contended that zeroing outside the punishment doesn't make the individual mandate and that if it did, the remaining part of the law stays viable.
The Trump administration has revealed its legal argument against the Affordable Care Act, claiming Congress rendered the law unconstitutional by removing the individual mandate.
District Judge Reed O'Connor's decision last December went much further than the DOJ had urged, declaring the entire ACA invalid, as the Texas-led coalition of plaintiff states had requested.More news: Blues, Stars tied 2-2 heading to game 5 | Lexington Herald Leader
If the ruling is allowed to stand, more than 20 million Americans would be at risk of losing their health insurance, re-igniting a winning political issue for Democrats heading into the 2020 elections. This reverses its argument from past year when the DOJ contended that the majority of the ACA did not depend on the individual mandate penalty and should remain.
In the meantime, Pelosi said, "the Trump Administration owes the American people answers for why it is seeking to rip away protections for pre-existing conditions and cause such vast suffering for families across America". Absent the individual mandate, the argument follows, the rest of the statute is so interdependent that it can not properly function, is not be consistent with Congress's objectives in enacting the ACA, and unconstitutional in its entirety. He explained that without a tax penalty, the law's demand that most Americans have insurance is unconstitutional. The law's Medicaid expansion continues to insure about 12 million low-income people.
Meanwhile, the effects of this court ruling have been on hold pending appeals.
It's likely that the Supreme Court will need to weigh in.More news: Blake Lively And Ryan Reynolds Casually Announce Baby No. 3
If the law is ultimately overturned as unconstitutional, the repercussions would reverberate throughout the entire US health care economy, upending healthcare markets, affecting insurers, hospitals and consumers. A courtroom victory would meet the goal of undoing the legislation of Trump, but nevertheless, it may be costly for the GOP by ending popular provisions such as protection for coverage and pre-existing conditions to young adults on their parents' medical programs.
The brief states the ACA's individual mandate, now toothless because it lacks any financial penalty, can't be separated from the rest of the act.
They said that when Congress repealed the tax penalty for those remaining uninsured, it was more like a tweak than a blow created to bring down the entire 974-page statute. From combating fraud the health law also rewrote laws on a broad range of subjects.
Democrats argue that when the law is to be replaced, that's the job of Congress and the president under the Constitution, not the courts.More news: U.N.: Millions of North Koreans suffering severe food shortages