txking / Shutterstock.com

Featured eBooks
Best Dates to Retire 2020
What’s Next for Federal Customer Experience
 The Future of the Air Force
House GOP Can Pursue Obamacare Lawsuit, Judge Says

Federal judge’s ruling lets controversial lawsuit against Obama administration continue.

House Re­pub­lic­ans won a ma­jor vic­tory Wed­nes­day in the latest leg­al battle over Obama­care.

A fed­er­al judge in Wash­ing­ton said the GOP has leg­al stand­ing to sue the ad­min­is­tra­tion over its im­ple­ment­a­tion of a partic­u­lar Obama­care pro­gram—a law­suit that threatens bil­lions of dol­lars in health care sub­sidies, while aim­ing to valid­ate Re­pub­lic­ans’ com­plaints that Pres­id­ent Obama has usurped too much power.

Judge Rose­mary Colly­er of the U.S. Dis­trict Court for the Dis­trict of Columbia did not rule Wed­nes­day on the mer­its of the GOP’s ar­gu­ments. But simply al­low­ing the case to pro­ceed is a big set­back for the ad­min­is­tra­tion, which had urged Collyer to dis­miss the law­suit im­me­di­ately.

Re­pub­lic­ans and con­ser­vat­ive leg­al schol­ars didn’t get everything they wanted from Colly­er’s de­cision—she re­jec­ted a por­tion of the law­suit that could have opened the door to a flood of law­suits over polit­ic­al dis­putes between the legislative and ex­ec­ut­ive branches.

But she did leave crit­ics’ best anti-Obama­care weapon in­tact.

House Re­pub­lic­ans say the ad­min­is­tra­tion ex­ceeded its au­thor­ity when it im­ple­men­ted Obama­care’s cost-shar­ing subsidies, even though Con­gress had not ap­pro­pri­ated fund­ing for the pro­gram. (The sub­sidies in ques­tion help people pay for their co-pays, de­duct­ibles, and oth­er out-of-pock­et costs; they’re sep­ar­ate from the premi­um sub­sidies that the Su­preme Court up­held in June.)

The Con­sti­tu­tion gives Con­gress the power of the purse, House Re­pub­lic­ans ar­gued, and Con­gress ex­er­cised that power by de­cid­ing not to fund Obama­care’s cost-shar­ing sub­sidies. But the ad­min­is­tra­tion fun­ded the pro­gram any­way.

The White House said the dis­pute was simply a polit­ic­al ques­tion, and shouldn’t be settled in the courts. The House of Rep­res­ent­at­ives had not suffered an ac­tu­al in­jury, the ad­min­is­tra­tion ar­gued, and there­fore would not have stand­ing to bring its law­suit.

But Colly­er dis­agreed.

“Where the dis­pute is over true im­ple­ment­a­tion, Con­gress re­tains its tra­di­tion­al checks and bal­ances—most prominently its purse strings. But when the ap­pro­pri­ations pro­cess is it­self cir­cum­ven­ted, Con­gress finds it­self de­prived of its con­sti­tu­tion­al role and in­jured in a more par­tic­u­lar and con­crete way,” she wrote.

House Re­pub­lic­ans also chal­lenged delays in en­for­cing Obama­care’s em­ploy­er man­date, which could have opened the door to a wide range of leg­al chal­lenges. But Colly­er dis­missed that sec­tion of the law­suit.

Im­ple­ment­a­tion delays are pretty com­mon, and many leg­al ex­perts said al­low­ing Re­pub­lic­ans to chal­lenge delays in the em­ploy­er man­date could have set a pre­ced­ent for a nearly end­less parade of law­suits, for­cing the courts to settle what would nor­mally be a routine polit­ic­al back-and-forth.

Colly­er largely ad­op­ted the same reas­on­ing. Re­pub­lic­ans do not have stand­ing to chal­lenge the em­ploy­er-man­date delays, she said, be­cause they fall un­der the um­brella of typ­ic­al polit­ic­al dis­putes between the two branches.

(Image via  / Shutterstock.com)