A US federal judge in Texas has ruled the Affordable Care Act – also known as “Obamacare” – is unconstitutional.
In a 55-page opinion, US District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that last year’s tax cut bill knocked the constitutional foundation from under Obamacare by eliminating a penalty for not having coverage.
The rest of the law cannot be separated from that provision and is therefore invalid, he wrote.
“Today’s misguided ruling will not deter us: our coalition will continue to fight in court for the health and wellbeing of all Americans,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, who is leading a coalition of states defending the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The White House applauded O’Connor’s ruling, but said the law remains in place while appeals proceed.
President Donald Trump tweeted that Congress should pass a new law.
“As I predicted all along, Obamacare has been struck down as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL disaster!” Trump tweeted.
“Now Congress must pass a STRONG law that provides GREAT healthcare and protects pre-existing conditions.”
However, Congress is unlikely to act while the case remains in the courts.
Numerous high-ranking Republican politicians have said they did not intend to also strike down popular provisions such as protection for people with pre-existing medical conditions when they repealed the ACA’s fines for people who can afford coverage but remain uninsured.
Still, Democratic representative Nancy Pelosi, who is expected to become House speaker in January, vowed to fight what she called an “absurd ruling”.
She said the House “will move swiftly to formally intervene in the appeals process to uphold the life-saving protections for people with pre-existing conditions and reject Republicans’ effort to destroy the Affordable Care Act”.
White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said: “We expect this ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court. Pending the appeal process, the law remains in place.”
Legal expert Timothy Jost, a supporter of the health law, said O’Connor’s ruling would have repercussions for nearly all Americans if it stands.
If the entire health law is invalidated, popular provisions that benefit Medicare beneficiaries and people with employer coverage would also be scrapped. That could include the section that allows parents to keep young adult children on their coverage until age 26.
About 20 million people have gained health insurance coverage since the ACA passed in 2010 without a single Republican vote.
Currently, about 10m have subsidised private insurance through the health law’s insurance markets, while an estimated 12m low-income people are covered through its Medicaid expansion.
Saturday is the sign-up deadline for 2019 private plans. Meanwhile, a number of states are expected to move forward with Medicaid expansion after Democratic victories in the midterm elections.
If the case were to reach the Supreme Court it would mark the third time the justices consider a challenge to fundamental provisions of the law.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here