Tag: affordable care act

New Obamacare Lawsuit Targets Arizona Gov. Brewer’s Illegal New Taxes

In 1992, after seeing their taxes raised 8 times in 9 years, the people of Arizona overwhelmingly approved Proposition 108, a ballot initiative that amended the state constitution to require tax and fee increases to be passed by a 2/3 vote in each of Arizona’s legislative bodies.  Since then, Prop 108’s supermajority requirement has protected Arizona taxpayers from the kind of special-interest-driven tax increases that typically don’t enjoy public support. As a result, Arizona’s tax burden has fallen over the years, to the state’s great economic benefit.

Recently, however, as part of a brazen effort to force through Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, Governor Jan Brewer – who ran for reelection last year as a staunch opponent of Obamacare – sidestepped Prop 108 in a way that threatens to eviscerate its taxpayer protections and otherwise violate Arizona’s stricter-than-normal adherence to the separation of powers.

Because the Medicaid expansion will cost Arizona an untold sum, and did not receive the 2/3 majority required for it to raise the taxes to pay for itself, Brewer employed more creative means to raise Arizonans’ taxes: delegating the taxation authority to a state bureaucracy and calling it an “assessment.” This approach takes advantage of Prop 108’s exception for “fees and assessments that are authorized by statute, but are not prescribed by formula, amount or limit, and are set by a state officer or agency.” Interpreted Brewer’s way, the exception allows the legislature to delegate a taxing power to state agencies that the legislature itself doesn’t have. If read this way, the exception would forevermore swallow the rule and impose an outcome contrary to Prop 108’s stated purpose.

Accordingly, our friends at the Goldwater Institute last week filed suit in state court on behalf of state lawmakers – including Rep. Adam Kwasman, a good friend of mine who’s now the vice-chair of the Arizona House Ways & Means Committee – and their constituents, challenging the new tax as a violation of Arizona’s constitution and the state’s separation of powers.  Goldwater argues that the hidden tax violates Prop. 108’s supermajority requirement for new taxes, and that Arizona’s strict separation of powers prohibits the delegation of taxing power to an unaccountable state bureaucracy.

Goldwater is clearly in the right. Prop 108 was adopted for the plain purpose of preventing precisely this type of special interest tax-and-spend behavior – behavior the people of Arizona will be even less able to oppose if state courts determine that a bare legislative majority can delegate taxation power that it doesn’t itself possess. Brewer’s Medicaid expansion, meanwhile, threatens to take the taxing power out of Arizonans’ hands and give it to bureuacrats and the special interests that lobby them.

It will be a shame if Arizona courts permit Brewer’s newfound insistence on enabling Obamacare to effectively neuter a constitutional provision supported by more than 70% of voters. For more commentary on the case, read Josh Blackman.

This blogpost was co-authored by Cato legal associate Julio Colomba.

Might the Washington Post Be Partial to ObamaCare?

Here’s a poor, unsuccessful letter I sent to the editor of the Washington Post:

Thirty-two states have issued a stunning vote of no confidence in President Obama’s health care law by refusing to finance and operate the new regulatory bureaucracies (“exchanges”) at its core. This development threatens to delay implementation of the law, at the very least.

Post readers learned of this once-unimaginable rebuke in an article that gave top billing to those states’ critics [“Critics Slam GOP States over Health Exchanges,” Dec. 14, A1]. The article further claimed, “there’s no question that federal officials will wield substantially more power” in those states, when in fact that highly disputed opinion is at the center of the entire debate.

This followed an article hailing an Obama administration decision to abandon a measure designed to reduce federal Medicaid spending as a “silver lining” [“A Supreme Court Silver Lining?: How Medicaid Dodged the Deficit Debate,” Dec. 12]. The article quoted six sources who supported the administration’s move, but none of the administration’s critics.

Post readers would be better served by less partial health policy coverage.

I’m Still Not Over the Obamacare Ruling

That’s the title of an op-ed I had in the Daily Caller last week.  Here’s how it begins:

Four months have passed since Chief Justice John Roberts made Obamacare’s individual mandate a tax and thereby let stand one of the two laws most responsible for our sluggish economy (the other being the Dodd-Frank financial “reform”). I was in the courtroom that fateful June day and my emotions quickly cycled through shock, denial, anger, and later depression — why had I dedicated myself to the law when the most important case of my lifetime turned out in this illegitimate way? — before settling into the “bargaining” stage of grieving.

I’m still there. I just cannot get over that blow against not only sound jurisprudence and the rule of law — bad enough — but against the legitimacy of our government altogether. By recognizing that Obamacare was unconstitutional but shying away from striking it down, John Roberts fundamentally shook my faith in our system of justice.

Read the whole thing and also consider the words of Randy Barnett – who more than anyone is responsible for the Obamacare litigation – from the first panel of Cato’s Constitution Day conference in September:

Now we will have an election to decide the ultimate fate of Obamacare. But this election will also be about who gets selected to serve on the Supreme Court. Should Republican presidents continue to nominate judicial conservatives who are enthralled with New Dealers’ mantra of judicial restraint, or should Republican presidents nominate constitutional conservatives who believe that it is not activism for judges to be engaged in enforcing the whole Constitution. All future nominees should be vetted not only for their views on the meaning of the Constitution, but for their willingness to enforce that meaning. For over two years, our nation was given a great lesson on constitutional law — that the enumerated powers are limits Congress cannot exceed. In June, the electorate was given a different lesson in judicial philosophy: Judicial restraint in enforcing those limits is no virtue. In November and beyond, we will see just how well those lessons were learned.

Obamacare delenda est.

Replacing Obamacare: Cato Offers a Positive Solution

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled on Obamacare—the first of many challenges to reach it because, to paraphrase Nancy Pelosi, the more we learn about it, the more constitutional defects we find—the focus of public debate has returned to the policy arena. I’ve stepped to the side here because, as I said all along, I’m a simple constitutional lawyer, not a health care expert.

My colleagues Michael Cannon and Michael Tanner, however, have been doing yeoman’s work in describing what states should and shouldn’t do until we get federal officials willing to excise the Obamacare tumor from the body politic—and what Congress should then do to actually reform our health care system. They’ve collected their (and a few others’) work into a really cool e-book, Replacing Obamacare: The Cato Institute on Health Care Reform.

I’ll let the Mikes expound on their various policy analyses and prescriptions elsewhere, but just wanted to highlight the legal parts:

Chapter 25 - Bill ‘Reforms’ Constitution - Robert A. Levy and Michael F. Cannon

Chapter 26 - The Case against President Obama’s Health Care Reform: A Primer for Nonlawyers - Robert A. Levy

Chapter 27 - Elena’s Nanny State - Michael D. Tanner

Chapter 28 - Obamacare Is Unconstitutional - Roger Vinson

Chapter 29 - HHS v. Florida - Cato’s individual mandate brief before the Supreme Court

Chapter 30 -  Baking Some Humble Pie for Congress - Trevor Burrus

Chapter 31 - The Supreme Obamacare Question - Michael D. Tanner

Chapter 32 - That’s Not a Limiting Principle, Noah Feldman Edition - Michael F. Cannon

Chapter 33 - In Opposing Obamacare, We Were Serious the Whole Time - Ilya Shapiro

Chapter 76 - It Now Falls to Congress - Roger Pilon

Chapter 77 - We Won Everything but the Case - Ilya Shapiro

Chapter 78 - John Roberts, Judicial Pacifist - Ilya Shapiro

Chapter 79 - Health Law a Loser despite Court Victory - Michael F. Cannon

Chapter 80 - Chief Justice Roberts Sold Out the Constitution for Less Than Wales - Ilya Shapiro

Chapter 81 - ObamaCare’s Now a Bigger Mess - Michael D. Tanner

Chapter 82 - If ObamaCare Survives, Legal Battle Has Just Begun - Jonathan H. Adler and Michael F. Cannon

These are white papers, essays, op-eds, blog posts, and even a brief that you may have come across already (and can Google separately), but now you can get them all—along with all the great policy stuff —in one convenient e-book (whose table of contents you can see here).

Roberts Was Against Treating the Mandate as a Tax Before He Was For It

On March 27, during the part of the Obamacare oral argument devoted to the individual mandate, Solicitor General Verrilli said that the Court has an “obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that  basis.”  To that, Chief Justice Roberts responded quite critically, interrupting the solicitor general and asking why then didn’t Congress call it a tax.  The Chief does not seem particularly convinced on this issue, with the SG having a nonsensical answer of “there is nothing I know of that illuminates that.”

Yet, that is the exact issue he later accepted.

Here is the full exchange (from pages 49–50 of the transcript), including the preceding relevant exchange between Justice Kagan and the SG:

JUSTICE KAGAN: I suppose, though, General, one question is whether the determined efforts of Congress not to refer to this as a tax make a difference. I mean, you’re suggesting we should just look to the practical operation. We shouldn’t look at labels. And that seems right, except that here we have a case in which Congress determinedly said this is not a tax, and the question is why should that be irrelevant?

GENERAL VERRILLI: I don’t think that that’s a fair characterization of the actions of Congress here, Justice Kagan. On the—December 23rd, a point of constitutional order was called to, in fact, with respect to this law. The floor sponsor, Senator Baucus, defended it as an exercise of the taxing power. In his response to the point of order, the Senate voted 60 to 39 on that proposition.  The legislative history is replete with members of Congress explaining that this law is constitutional as an exercise of the taxing power. It was attacked as a tax by its opponents. So I don’t think this is a situation where you can say that Congress was avoiding any mention of the tax power.  It would be one thing if Congress explicitly disavowed an exercise of the tax power. But given that it hasn’t done so, it seems to me that it’s—not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Why didn’t Congress call it a tax, then?

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well—

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: You’re telling me they thought of it as a tax, they defended it on the tax power. Why didn’t they say it was a tax?

GENERAL VERRILLI: They might have thought, Your Honor, that calling it a penalty as they did would make it more effective in accomplishing its objective. But it is—in the Internal Revenue Code it is collected by the IRS on April 15th. I don’t think this is a situation in which you can say—

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, that’s the reason. They thought it might be more effective if they called it a penalty.

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, I—you know, I don’t—there is nothing that I know of that illuminates that, but certainly…

What a difference a few weeks make.

H/t to a frequent co-author who must remain nameless due to his current occupation.

Obamacare Rethink Maybe

Right before leaving town for the summer, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that “Rethink Maybe” was the pop hit of the summer, overtaking last year’s remake of “Every Breath You Take”:

Rethink Maybe

I filed a brief with the Court,
Don’t worry, it’s rather short
Constitution and not tort,
But now you’re in my way

I’d trade my soul for a wish,
Limited powers it is
Nobody expected this,
But now you’re in my way

Blue-eyed stare was holdin’,
Black-robed, balls-strikes callin’
Then you started cavin’
Where you think you’re goin’, CJ?

Hey, John Roberts,
This is crazy,
Mandates aren’t taxes,
So rethink, maybe?

It’s hard to look right,
At you CJ,
Your op makes no sense,
So rethink, maybe?

I just read you,
The ruling’s crazy,
Read Article I,
And rethink, maybe?

The other justices,
Ruled on the law,
But you played politics,
So rethink, maybe?

You thought Congress was remiss,
But changed your mind after this
You gave me the Commerce Clause,
But still, you’re in my way

I beg, and argue and plead
Had foresight, reason indeed
I didn’t know how I’d feel,
But now it’s in my way

Blue-eyed stare was holdin’,
Black-robed, balls-strikes callin’
Then you started cavin’
Where you think you’re goin’, CJ?

It’s hard to look right,
At you CJ,
Your op makes no sense,
So rethink, maybe?

Hey, John Roberts,
This is crazy,
Mandates aren’t taxes,
So rethink, maybe?

It’s hard to look right,
At you CJ,
Your op makes no sense,
So rethink, maybe?

All other justices,
Ruled on the law,
Mandates aren’t taxes,
So rethink, maybe?

When you came onto the Court
I thought you so rad
My man-crush so bad
My man-crush so, so bad

Now thanks to you I’ll pay this tax
It made me so mad
But now I’m just sad
It makes me so, so sad

It’s hard to look right,
At you CJ,
Mandates aren’t taxes,
So rethink, maybe?

I just read you,
The ruling’s crazy,
Read Article I,
And rethink, maybe?

The other justices,
Ruled on the law,
But you played politics,
So rethink, maybe?

When you came onto the Court
I thought you so rad
My man-crush so bad
My man-crush so, so bad

Now thanks to you I’ll pay this tax
It makes me so sad
And you should know that

So rethink, maybe?

Obamacare’s Constitutional Defects, First Amendment Division

On May 11, the Department of Health & Human Services finalized rules requiring insurers to tell any of their customers who get premium rebates this summer that the windfall comes courtesy of Obamacare.  Here’s the official required language:  “This letter is to inform you that you will receive a rebate of a portion of your health insurance premiums. This rebate is required by the Affordable Care Act-the health reform law.”

Given that Obamacare is already increasing costs for most patients – insured or otherwise – I wonder who the lucky few will be who get a chance to read the government’s prose.  Moreover, it’s a bit rich to create this “language mandate” when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius had earlier advised insurance companies not to speak against Obamacare’s cost-increasing features.  As the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Hans Bader put it:

Obama’s HHS secretary sought to gag insurers that disclosed how Obamacare’s mandates are increasing the cost of health insurance, even though such speech is clearly protected by the First Amendment, telling them if they did so, they could be excluded from health insurance exchanges. Prior to that, the Obama administration attempted to gag insurers from disclosing how Obamacare harms Medicare Advantage participants, drawing criticism from First Amendment experts like UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, the author of two First Amendment textbooks.

Beyond the unseemliness of it all, however, there’s also a constitutional problem:  The government can’t require people to make politicized statements, whether that’s “Live Free or Die” on license plate or the labeling of consumer products where the labels aren’t justified on fraud-prevention or public health grounds.  See some other examples and legal analysis in Bader’s post at CEI’s blog.

The bottom line is that just like the First Amendment stops the government from censoring speech, it stops it from forcing speech.  And just like there’s no “health care is unique” exception to the Commerce Clause, there isn’t one to the First Amendment.