Since its enactment, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has faced numerous legal challenges. Many of these lawsuits have focused on implementation of the law and the limits of executive power. Opponents challenged the ACA under the Obama Administration while supporters have turned to the courts to prevent the Trump Administration from undermining the law. In the meantime, Congress remains gridlocked over the ACA and many other critical health policy issues, leaving the executive branch to adopt its preferred policy approach and ultimately leading to lawsuits. This article briefly discusses the history of litigation over the ACA and some reasons why this litigation has been so enduring. The article then identifies other areas of health policy that are or could be future targets for litigation. Finally, the article comments on the potential impact of the courts on future health reform efforts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
P.Hamby and J.Acosta, “14 States Sue to Block Health Care Law,”CNN, March23, 2010.
2.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012).
3.
King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015).
4.
Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016); Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014).
5.
Maine Community Health Options v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1308 (2020) (holding that insurers are owed risk corridor payments); Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, 140 S. Ct. 2367 (2020).
Letter from M. V. Totaro, U.S Dep’t of Justice, to L. W. Cayce, Clerk of Court, Texas v, United States, No. 19-10011 (5th Cir. filed Mar. 25, 2019). SeeK.Keith, Trump Administration Asks Court to Strike Down Entire ACA, Health Affairs Blog, March26, 2019, available at <https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190326.572950/full/> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).
9.
Texas v. United States, 340 F. Supp. 3d 579 (N.D. Tex. 2018).
10.
Texas v. United States, 945 F.3d 355 (5th Cir. 2019).
11.
Id.
12.
Texas v. United States, 949 F.3d 182 (5th Cir. 2020).
13.
T.S.Jost and K.Keith, “The ACA and the Courts: Litigation’s Effects on the Law’s Implementation and Beyond,”Health Affairs39, no. 3 (2020): 479-486.
See West Virginia v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 827 F.3d 81 (D.C. Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1614 (2017); U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, 130 F. Supp. 3d 53 (D.D.C. 2015) (concluding that the House lacked standing to challenge a delay of enforcement of the employer mandate but could challenge the payment of cost-sharing reductions to insurers).
16.
Ass’n for Community Affiliated Plans v. Dep’t of Treasury,, __ F.3d __, 2020 WL 4032806 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 17, 2020) (upholding regulation expanding availability of short-term plans), appeal pending, No. 19-5212 (D.C. Cir. docketed July 30, 2019); New York v. Dep’t of Labor, 363 F. Supp. 3d 109 (D.D.C. 2019) (invalidating regulation that expanded availability of association health plans), appeal pending, No. 19-5125 (D.C. Cir. docketed Apr. 30, 2019); California v. Trump, 267 F. Supp. 3d 1119 (N.D. Cal. 2017) (denying preliminary injunction in suit challenging the termination of cost-sharing reduction payments to insurers).
17.
City of Columbus v. Trump, 2020 WL 1820074 (D. Md. Apr. 10, 2020).
SeeT.S.Jost and K.Keith, “ACA Litigation: Politics Pursued through Other Means,”Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law45, no. 4 (2020): 485-499.
20.
Philbrick v. Azar, 397 F. Supp. 3d 11 (D.D.C. 2019), appeal pending, No. 19-5295 (D.C. Cir. docketed Oct. 31, 2019); Gresham v. Azar, 363 F. Supp. 3d 165 (D.D.C. 2019), aff ’d, --- F.3d ---, No. 19-5094 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 14, 2020); Stewart v. Azar, 366 F Supp. 3 125 (D.D.C. 2019), appeal dismissed as moot, No. 19-5095 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 8, 2020).
21.
Gresham v. Azar, 950 F.3d 93 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
22.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, State Medicaid Director Letter No. 20-001 (Jan. 30, 2020).
23.
Okla. Health Care Auth., SoonerCare 2.0 Healthy Adult Opportunity (HAO) Section 1115 Demonstration Application, Apr. 21, 2019, available at <https://www.okhca.org/sooner-care2/> (last visited July 16, 2020).
24.
Merck & Co. v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 962 F.3d 531 (D.C. Cir. 2020). The drug price transparency rule that is the subject of this ruling is Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Regulation to Require Drug Pricing Transparency, 84 Fed. Reg. 20,732 (May 10, 2019).
25.
American Hospital Association v. Azar, 2020 WL 3429774 (D.D.C. June 23, 2020), appeal pending, No. 20-5193 (D.C. Cir. docketed June 30, 2020). The hospital price transparency rule that is the subject of this suit is Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Servs., Medicare and Medicaid Programs: Price Transparency Requirements for Hospitals to Make Standard Charges Public, 84 Fed. Reg. 65,524 (Nov. 27, 2019).
26.
Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority, 84 Fed. Reg. 23,170 (May21, 2019).
27.
New York v. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 414 F. Supp. 3d 475 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2019), appeal pending, No. 20-41 (2d Cir. docketed Jan. 3, 2020); Washington v. Azar, --- F. Supp. 3d ---, 2019 WL 6219541 (E.D. Wash. Nov. 21, 2019), appeal pending, No. 20-35044 (9th Cir. docketed Jan. 21, 2020); San Francisco v. Azar, 411 F. Supp. 3d 1001 (N.D. Cal. 2019).
28.
Dep’t of Health and Human Servs., Nondiscrimination in Health and Health Education or Activities, Delegation of Authority, 85 Fed. Reg. 37,160 (Jun. 19, 2020).
Dep’t of Homeland Security, Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds, 84 Fed. Reg. 41,292 (Aug. 14, 2019).
31.
Cook Cnty. v. McAleenan, 417 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (N.D. Ill. 2019); New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 408 F. Supp. 3d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2019); Washington v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, 408 F. Supp. 3d 1191 (E.D. Wash. 2019); City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Servs., 408 F. Supp. 3d 1057 (N.D. Cal. 2019); Casa de Maryland, Inc. v. Trump, 414 F. Supp. 3d 760 (D. Md. 2019). SeeW.E.Parmet, Supreme Court Allows Public Charge Rule to Take Effect While Appeals Continue, Health Affairs Blog, February3, 2020, available at <https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20200131.845894/full/> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).
32.
Dep’t of Homeland Security v. New York, 140 S. Ct. 599 (2020).
33.
New York v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2020 WL 4347264 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2020).RV.
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Pub. L. No. 116-94, tit. I §§ 608, 609 (2019).
39.
S.Armour, “Trump’s Proposed ACA Rules Could Boost Costs for Millions of People,”Wall Street Journal, Jan. 17, 2019.
40.
SeeR.Rayasam, “5 Republican AGs Who May Drown a Democratic White House,”Politico, January25, 2020.
41.
Inst. for Policy Integrity, Roundup: Trump-Era Agency Policy in the Courts (last updated Jan. 10, 2020), available at <https://policyintegrity.org/trump-court-roundup> (last visited Feb. 14, 2020).
