CHARLESTON, W.Va. — A group of Republican state attorneys general is arguing a U.S. district court was correct when it ruled in 2018 that former President Barack Obama’s health care law is unconstitutional.
The Republican attorneys general on Tuesday filed another brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the ongoing legal challenge to the federal health care law, saying U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas rightly determined the law’s provisions are “invalid and unenforceable nationwide” using judicial precedents.
Eighteen attorneys general, including West Virginia’s Patrick Morrisey, are urging the Supreme Court to overturn “Obamacare” in light of Congress’ 2017 decision to reduce the penalty for not purchasing health insurance to zero.
The federal district court struck down “Obamacare” and the individual mandate in December 2018. A federal appellate court last December ruled the individual mandate is unconstitutional but asked the district court to review which parts of the Affordable Care Act can be separated from the provision.
The Republican attorneys general said “Obamacare” includes text signifying provisions cannot be severed from each other with the expectation the law can still function.
“When Congress declares a statutory provision ‘essential,’ this Court takes Congress at its word. That is all the more true here, where Congress amended the ACA in 2017 and had the opportunity to remove the inseverability clause, but chose not to,” the GOP coalition stated.
“And there is no basis to cabin the geographic reach of the conclusion that the ACA’s major and minor provisions fall with the unconstitutional mandate.”
Democratic state attorneys general and the U.S. House of Representatives have submitted briefs stating reducing the individual mandate did not eliminate the provision’s legal standing, but rather make it “inoperative.” Both groups have also argued the law can function without the individual mandate.
The Republican group stated Tuesday petitioners have ignored multiple provisions connected to the individual mandate.
“Because these obligations remain and continue to injure plaintiffs, the mandate is not unenforceable as petitioners’ challenge to the district court’s remedial order presumes,” the Republican attorneys general said.
The Republican group also argued the decision’s impact should not be limited to one plaintiff, but rather be uniform.
If the Supreme Court strikes down “Obamacare,” it would end the legal protection for covering pre-existing conditions in addition to state Medicaid expansion efforts. A 2018 West Virginia University study notes around 718,000 non-elderly West Virginians have a pre-existing condition.
Morrisey previously told MetroNews he supports protecting coverage of pre-existing conditions, which is already part of “Obamacare.” President Donald Trump said earlier this month he is working on an executive order requiring insurance companies to maintain coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions.
The Supreme Court will take up the case in its next term, which will begin in October, and a ruling is unlikely to be announced before the general election.