WASHINGTON _ Taking up an appeal from California's attorney general, the Supreme Court announced Monday it will rule on a lawsuit brought by Texas and backed by the Trump administration that would strike down Obamacare, including its protections for tens of millions of Americans with preexisting medical conditions.
Twice before the high court has upheld the health care law, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. casting the key votes to reject broad conservative challenges.
The justices said they would hear the new case this fall as voters are about to go to the polls. Democrats have been determined to keep a spotlight on the continuing effort by President Donald Trump and the Republicans to throw out the health care law, including its expanded Medicaid coverage for low-income Americans and its subsidies for those who need help to buy health insurance.
At issue now is whether the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional because the Republican-controlled Congress voted in 2017 to stop applying a tax penalty on those who do not have insurance.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton asserted, and a federal judge in Fort Worth agreed, that the entire law must be voided. They theorized that the so-called "mandate" to buy insurance was an essential element of the law, and that by reducing the penalty to zero, Congress had implicitly struck down the entire statute.
Trump's lawyers later joined the case and endorsed this theory, despite strong criticism from legal experts on the left and right. Republican efforts to repeal Obamacare, including popular provisions like the protections for preexisting conditions, helped Democrats take back the House in 2018, and they plan to make health care an issue in 2020.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra stepped in to defend the law after the Justice Department refused to do so. He was joined by his counterparts in 19 Democratic-led states. When Democrats took control of the House, their lawyers also joined in defense of the law.
For all of last year, the case sat before the 5th Circuit Court in New Orleans. A three-judge panel, with two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee, heard arguments in July and finally handed down an inconclusive ruling in late December. Judges Jennifer Walker Elrod and Kurt Engelhardt agreed the mandate was now void and unconstitutional, but they sent the case back to the district judge in Fort Worth to reconsider whether other parts must be voided as well.
In dissent, Judge Carolyn Dineen King said the status of the so-called mandate was nothing but an "academic curiosity," with no practical consequence. "People can purchase insurance _ or not _ as they please," she wrote.
In January, Becerra appealed and urged the justices to bypass the appeals court and to hear the case on a fast track so a ruling could be issued by summer. The court turned down the request to decide quickly, but now they will review the case later this year. The appeal is called California vs. Texas.
