ScotusBlog describes the case - and states that it breaks new Constitutional ground. This should be of interest to 2305 students who are starting to dig into Article One of the U.S. Constitution. It involves who controls the national purse strings. this story also illustrates the checks and balances - albeit one of the more unusual ones.
- Click here for the article.
- Click here for the ruling.
It looks at a key part of Article One - one we talked about in class last week, the appropriations clause - and asks whether the House of Representatives has standing to sue the executive branch in how it is implementing the law it passed a few years back.
From the decision:
- Click here for the article.
- Click here for the ruling.
It looks at a key part of Article One - one we talked about in class last week, the appropriations clause - and asks whether the House of Representatives has standing to sue the executive branch in how it is implementing the law it passed a few years back.
From the decision:
Article I of the United States Constitution established the Congress, which comprises a House of Representatives and a Senate. U.S. Const. art. I, § 1. Only these two bodies, acting together, can pass laws—including the laws necessary to spend public money. In this respect, Article I is very clear: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law . . . .” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7.
Through this lawsuit, the House of Representatives complains that Sylvia Burwell, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Jacob Lew, the Secretary of the Treasury, and their respective departments (collectively the Secretaries) have spent billions of unappropriated dollars to support the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The House further alleges that Secretary Lew and Treasury have, under the guise of implementing regulations, effectively amended the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate by delaying its effect and narrowing its scope.
The Secretaries move to dismiss, arguing that the House lacks standing to sue. They argue that only the Executive has authority to implement the laws, and urge this Court to stay out of a quintessentially political fight in which the House is already well armed. The House opposes, adamant that it has been injured in several concrete ways, none of which can be ameliorated through the usual political processes. The only issue before the Court is whether the House can sue the Secretaries; the merits of this lawsuit await another dayAnd the judge says it can go forward with that issue.
ScotusBlog explains the nuances of the House of Representatives complaint:
As part of the ACA’s policy of helping millions of lower-income Americans to obtain health insurance at affordable rates, the law has a variety of subsidy provisions. The Supreme Court in June upheld the system that provides lower-income consumers with a form of tax credit to help them afford policies that are sold on insurance marketplaces (or “exchanges”); that financial provision is not at issue in the House’s lawsuit. But the lawsuit explicitly targets a mechanism to encourage health insurance companies to reduce the costs of coverage for lower-income individuals.
The House claimed in court that, although Congress has in fact voted the funds to pay for the subsidy system keyed to the insurance exchanges, it has never approved any funds to cover the expense of the cost-sharing approach — technically, the “cost-sharing offsets.” The ACA required insurance companies taking part in the new program to specifically reduce the co-pays charged to consumers when they visit doctors’ offices or other health facilities. The federal government then steps in to reimburse the insurers for absorbing those costs.
In going to court, the House contended that the Obama administration has asked for, but never obtained, actual legislation appropriating those reimbursement funds, but instead has simply taken the money out of accounts at the Treasury and sent checks to the insurers. This, it argued, was a direct violation of the Constitution’s command that no federal funds may be spent unless approved, in advance, by Congress.
The administration has argued in response that the ACA itself provided all the authority that the government needed to finance the cost-sharing provision, so there was no need to ask Congress explicitly to put up the money. Officials also have disputed the House claim that they did, in fact, ask for appropriations.
