The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum, challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). McCollum, joined by 12 other state attorneys general, is challenging the reform law based upon several Constitutional claims.

Similar to its other responses to lawsuits challenging the PPACA, the DOJ is arguing here that the plaintiffs have no standing to litigate their claims. (Standing is a requirement that a plaintiff actually be a proper party to litigate the constitutionality of a law.) Standing requires that the plaintiff have a sufficient connection to the law being litigated, and have suffered or will soon suffer an injury due to the law. Without standing, a case will not be heard by the court. The DOJ says in its argument that the Supreme Court has already decided in previous cases that a state cannot sue to immunize its citizens from a federal statute, so the states have no standing to sue in this case. In addition, the DOJ says the states have not argued a concrete imminent injury from the law, but rather have only speculative injuries.

One of the measures of the PPACA the plaintiffs are litigating is expansion of eligibility for Medicaid. The federal government will pay the total of increased Medicaid costs through 2016, and after that 90 percent. States are allowed to opt out of the Medicaid program. However, the plaintiffs say that Medicaid has become so "customary and necessary" for state citizens that the states are realistically unable to opt out. Therefore, the PPACA is in effect forcing states to accept the resulting expenses of Medicaid that the federal government does not cover. The plaintiffs say this measure thus violates the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which holds that powers not given to the federal government are reserved for states.

However, the DOJ responds that no previous court decision has ever invalidated a federal law imposing conditions on funding given to states. To do so would stop Congress from being able to amend statutes, and would allow states to take federal funding but ignore terms under which the funding is given. Congress is allowed to impose conditions upon funding to states, so long as the conditions meet constitutional requirements. The DOJ argues that the particular spending conditions in the PPACA meet those requirements.

The states also claim that the establishment of exchanges for citizens to obtain health insurance violates the Tenth Amendment because even if a state opts out of the exchange, the federal government will create and administer the exchange. In doing so, the federal government would then be curtailing the states' power in insurance regulation. States are therefore coerced into setting up the exchanges. The DOJ's response argues that prior court decisions have established Congressional authority to pre-empt state regulatory laws when the laws are in conflict with federal law, as would be the case with the PPACA.

AG McCollum responded to the motion to dismiss, saying in a press release that he felt the state challenge will still succeed. "...the federal government is threatening our state sovereignty with this unprecedented expansion of federal powers and commandeering of state resources. This is not acceptable, and we will pursue this litigation as far as necessary to obtain relief for our citizens and our states."

AG McCollum's statement can be found at: http://www.myfloridalegal.com/newsrel.nsf/newsreleases/0E4AF7A9CC292C7C8525774500476E12

More Industry Headlines