Yesterday, the attorney general of Oklahoma amended that state's ObamaCare lawsuit. The amended complaint asks a federal court to clarify the Supreme Court's ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius, but it also challenges an IRS rule that imposes ObamaCare's employer mandate where the statute does not authorize it: on employers in the 30 to 40 states that decline to implement a health insurance "exchange."
Here are a few excerpts from Oklahoma's amended complaint:
The Final Rule was issued in contravention of the procedural and substantive requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act...; has no basis in any law of the United States; and directly conflicts with the unambiguous language of the very provision of the Internal Revenue Code it purports to interpret...
Under Defendants’ Interpretation, [this rule] expand[s] the circumstances under which an Applicable Large Employer must make an Assessable Payment...with the result that an employer may be required to make an Assessable Payment under circumstances not provided for in any statute and explicitly ruled out by unambiguous language in the Affordable Care Act.
Plaintiff believes...that subjecting the State of Oklahoma in its capacity as an employer to the employer mandate would cause the Affordable Care Act to exceed Congress’s legislative authority; to violate the Tenth Amendment; to impermissibly interfere with the residual sovereignty of the State of Oklahoma; and to violate Constitutional norms relating to the relationship between the states, including the State of Oklahoma, and the Federal Government.
As for the latest claim to be made in defense of the IRS rule -- that an Exchange established by the federal government under Section 1321 is an Exchange "established by the state under Section 1311" -- the complaint says this:
If the Act provides or is interpreted to provide that an Exchange established by HHS under Section 1321(c) of the Act is a form of what the Act refers to as “an Exchange established by a State under Section 1311 of [the Act],” then Section 1321(c) is unconstitutional because it commandeers state governmental authority with respect to State Exchanges, permits HHS to exercise a State’s legislative and/or executive power, and otherwise causes the Exchange-related provisions of the Act...to exceed Congress’s legislative authority; to violate the Tenth Amendment; to infringe on the residual sovereignty of the States under the Constitution; and to violate Constitutional norms relating to the relationship between the states, including the State of Oklahoma, and the Federal Government.
Oklahoma does not yet list any private-sector employers as co-plaintiffs, but that may change.
Since this IRS rule also unlawfully taxes 250,000 Oklahomans under the individual mandate -- a tax that in 2016 will reach $2,085 for a family of four earning $24,000 -- the attorney general has an awful lot of individual Oklahomans that he could add to its plaintiff roster.
Jonathan Adler and I first wrote about President Obama's illegal taxes on employers in the Wall Street Journal and again in the USA Today. Since parts of those opeds have been overtaken by events, I recommend reading our forthcoming Health Matrix article, "Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand Tax Credits Under the PPACA." Yes, all 82 pages of it.