Obamacare opponents lost a big blow when the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 Thursday that the subsidies could be given to states that didn’t set up their own exchanges.
The King v. Burwell Supreme Court case appeared to have been the last, best legal challenge to Obamacare, as several other measures aimed at crippling the controversial law have failed to gain traction. However, other lawsuits challenging aspects of the law, such as the birth control coverage mandate, could be heard before the high court.
One challenge that is flailing is a lawsuit focusing on whether Democrats violated a part of the Constitution when the law was passed.
The Constitution says any bills that raise revenue must originate in the House. The plaintiffs in Sissel v. HHS argued that the revenue bill originated in the Senate before the law was passed in 2010.
That year, then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., attached the Affordable Care Act to a House bill on homeowner tax credits for military service members.
The lawsuit argued that the bill had nothing to do with healthcare reform.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, unanimously denying the lawsuit last year.
The Affordable Care Act was not a bill for raising revenue, but more a bill aimed at expanding healthcare coverage. Prior Supreme Court cases have found that if a bill provision’s revenue-raising portion is incidental to its primary purpose, then the origination clause doesn’t apply, according to an opinion from the appeals court.
The court found that was the case here and therefore dismissed the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs have asked for a rehearing, but those are rarely granted, Timothy Jost, law professor at Washington and Lee University, told the Washington Examiner.
Jost noted the only other major challenge to Obamacare could be the House’s lawsuit against the administration over the law’s implementation.
House Republicans sued President Obama, accusing the administration of using money from the IRS tax refund pot to pay for insurance cost-sharing subsidies.
Last month a federal judge heard arguments on whether the House could legitimately sue the executive branch of the government. The judge asked the lawyers for additional legal briefs, and a decision on whether the lawsuit will move forward is expected at a later date.
Jost said the lawsuit has implications beyond just Obamacare. If the court finds the House can sue the administration when it disagrees over policy, it will essentially turn the courts into a new “political branch,” he warned.
“Any time Congress felt the administration was not doing what Congress thought it should be doing they could bring a lawsuit,” he said.
There are lawsuits that challenge aspects of Obamacare that could wind up before the Supreme Court.
For instance, nearly 50 lawsuits from nonprofits are winding their way through the federal courts. They challenge whether Obamacare’s religious accommodation to the birth control mandate is adequate.
The lawsuits focus on the mandate to cover preventive health measures such as birth control. Religious nonprofits can get an accommodation from the government, in which the government pays for contraceptives for employees instead of the employer.
The nonprofits want an exemption, which means the workers wouldn’t get coverage for some or all contraceptives.
These lawsuits are likely to wind up before the Supreme Court, but would not completely repeal the healthcare law if successful, Jost said.
