This afternoon, Judge Rosemary Collyer issued a final ruling in United States House of Representatives v. Burwell, the challenge to unilateral actions taken by the Administration under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Judge Collyer ruled in favor of the House of Representatives and found that the Administration violated the Constitution in committing billions of dollars from the United States Treasury without the approval of Congress. The historic ruling reaffirms the foundational “power of the purse” that was given to the legislative branch by the Framers.
In 2015, Judge Collyer rejected an effort by the Administration to bar consideration of the merits of the challenge, thereby setting the stage for her to rule on whether the Administration has violated Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution, which provides that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”
Today Judge Collyer ruled squarely for the House in finding the Administration’s actions to be unconstitutional and that its claims “cannot surmount the plain text [of the law].” Judge Collyer found that the refusal of Congress to appropriate the funds did not give the Administration license to unilaterally order the payment of billions to insurance companies. In comparing this case to prior unsuccessful challenges to the ACA, the Court noted:
“The problem the Secretaries have tried to solve here is . . . a failure to appropriate, not a failure in drafting. Congress’s subsequent inaction, not the text of the ACA, is what prompts the Secretaries to force the elephant into the mousehole. There are no inherent flaws in the ACA that keep Section 1402 payments from being paid, in advance or otherwise. . . . There is nothing in the ACA that prevents compliance. The funds simply must be appropriated.”
Judge Collyer’s decision is linked below.
Judge Collyer’s opinion is a resounding victory not just for Congress but for our constitutional system as a whole. We remain a system based on the principle of the separation of powers and the guarantee that no branch or person can govern alone. It is the very touchstone of the American constitutional system and today that principle was reaffirmed in this historic decision.
This victory was made possible by the extraordinary legal team from the Office of the General Counsel. I would again like to thank former General Counsel Kerry Kircher; Acting General Counsel William Pittard; Senior Assistant General Counsel Todd Tatelman; Assistant Counsels Eleni Roumel, Isaac Rosenberg, and Kimberly Hamm. It is an honor to be part of this team and this extraordinary moment in constitutional law.
Jonathan Turley
Lead Counsel for the United States House of Representatives
United States House of Representatives v. Burwell
Inside the Cuban Hospitals That Castro Doesn’t Want Tourists to See
Source
https://es.panampost.com/wp-content/uploads/IMG_20150926_222534551-225×300.jpg
RSA
1, May 12, 2016 at 1:34 pm
Dave — you can always move to Cuba. According to Michael Moore the healthcare there is great.
They actually have a MUCH lower mortality rate for infants. A much better healthcare system than US or Canada.
Maybe, if the law is reconsidered, they can UP the full time definition from 30 to 36 or 40 hours so working class American’s don’t have to work 2 and 3 jobs AND organizations, like TRUE non-profits don’t have to carry the load for the government’s largess: SUCH as the increase in the overtime exemption by DOL to a degree that would effect non-profit programs that serve our most needy populations such as people with Developmental Disabilities, Autism, the homeless and Mentally Ill. Obama, Hillary and “the rest” say, “Working class Americans deserve to have health insurance!” Who is the ultimate cost burden laid upon? Who takes the credit? — “Working class American’s deserve the have higher salaries or get paid overtime!” Who pays? Who takes the credit? I heard Hillary say, “ALL AMERICAN WOMEN DESERVE THE RIGHT TO BE PAID TO STAY AT HOME WITH THEIR SICK CHILD!” WHO PAYS? WHO TAKES THE CREDIT!? Just make the laws, fair. Don’t push the burden on already burdened organizations and then TAKE THE CREDIT!
“do you have any reason to dispute the quality of healthcare in Cuba?”
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/06/201265115527622647.html
This ruling confirms “Separation of Powers” which is good for Americans. As I understand the issue the ACA was written poorly and misunderstandings of coverage ensued. As to hurting millions of Americans with this ruling, many millions more Americans were hurt by their private insurance premiums soaring. Unneeded procedures had to be covered (pregnancy for seniors). The computer problems, due to lack of testing, had to be completely revised, adding millions of dollars more to the cost than was budgeted. Tack on the dollars given to insurance companies and the American taxpayer was forced to pick up the tab. ACA is a terrible piece of legislation, passed by Democrat votes only. ACA is an example of lack of compromise in drafting legislation. Remember “we have to pass it to see what’s in it”?
I tried reading it and was dumbfounded. Instead of reading the law there were areas that substitutions or additions were completed. But substitutions or additions to what? Section X Article Y Page Z. I’m not sure what happens now. The President has issued lots of Executive Orders that should have been legislated and budgeted by Congress. Will these Orders be invalid and sent to Congress for proper legislating? By Obama? Of course not. Ignoring the Constitution will be the history of his presidency. He should be impeached. I know we aren’t far from the end of his second term, but as he often says “it’s the right thing to do”.
> I hope you are happy hurting the millions who benefit from ACA so that you can claim a grand victory of principle.
So you dislike government by principle, government of law, how do you propose we organize government?
Also, it’s pretty obvious that within an hour of the ACA being overturned on account of this ruling, that Congress will have a bill to fund it going forward and retroactively. Why do you oppose letting Congress do its job now with the added pressure of knowing the many people they will hurt?
Bravo, Professor.
dave:
So breaking the law is OK because it “serves a greater good”?
Look down that road long and hard before you take it.
RSA — do you have any reason to dispute the quality of healthcare in Cuba?
bill mcwilliams – Cuba has not had a new car since the early 60s. How good do you think their medical equipment is? And their doctors are trained at the level of army medics. I wouldn’t trust them to do brain surgery.
Under the circumstances, this was the correct ruling. I hope it holds on appeal.
Dave — you can always move to Cuba. According to Michael Moore the healthcare there is great.
Last I checked, the Congress PASSED the ACA.
I have not been closely monitoring this case, so forgive me if I have this wrong, but here is how I think I understand it. Congress passes a law, signed by the President, which requires Congress to take a certain action. Congress disregards the law and refuses to take said action. The President then directs the Treasury to proceed as if Congress had taken the action it was required to take but didn’t. Congress sues and wins on the theory that the President exceeded his authority by doing something mandated by the law which Congress refused to follow. Is that pretty much right? And this is a victory for the Constitution…how?
I suppose that in purely procedural terms, it is good that the President be restricted to his enumerated powers. But in my mind this seems to be elevating form far, far above substance. It is Congress who is in the wrong and indeed could have and should have been sued. Forgive me if I don’t jump for joy when the party that deliberately breaks the law somehow “wins” in court.
I hope you are happy hurting the millions who benefit from ACA so that you can claim a grand victory of principle.
Wonderful news and a great article. Thank you, Mr. Turley.
What happens next?
Congratulations, Professor. No matter where one stands on PPACA, it’s a good thing when the courts affirm the basic constitutional roles (and limitations) of the branches of the federal government.