The Standing Arguments of the Obamacare Challengers Just Got Stronger
District of Columbia | May 20, 2021
It is a risky business reading tea leaves from the Supreme Court, because even when the Court does something in one case, it may not do the same in another, more politically charged case. That said, yesterday’s decision in CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service would seem to be good news for the argument that the state plaintiffs in Texas v. California, who are challenging the Obamacare mandate, have standing to sue.
Recall what the states argued in Texas about why the Obamacare individual mandate injures them, even though the penalty on individuals has been repealed:
The lawsuit was brought against the federal government by two individuals and a group of states, led by Texas . . . The states argue that the individual mandate imposes costs on them, mainly in two ways. One, it causes more people to sign up for Medicaid, thus increasing state spending (an argument backed up by CBO reports in 2008 and 2017 finding that more people will buy insurance if the law tells them to, even without a tax penalty). Two, the individual mandate forces the states to spend money on IRS reporting requirements aimed at enforcing compliance. Those reporting requirements were not eliminated when the penalty was set to $0 in 2017; employers are still required to file Form 1095-C, and the IRS has thus far only temporarily suspended the use of Form 1095-B. A South Dakota human-resources official submitted testimony that the state spends $100,000 a year just on Forms 1095-C…
(Excerpts from the National Review)