A few years ago, the Supreme Court held that the ACA individual mandate was outside the scope of the Commerce Clause, but was authorized by Congress’ taxing power. It was a ridiculous decision, based on about eighty years of precedent, and it was obviously an ungainly political compromise, but at least it kept the law in place. It obviously could have been much worse.
Congress subsequently eliminated the tax penalty that was attached to the individual mandate as part of the Trump tax cut. A number of individual right-wing zealots and red state governments subsequently filed a challenge to the remainder of ACA on the basis that the individual mandate was now unconstitutional, and that the invalid mandate provision could not be severed from the rest of the legislation. That argument flew in the face of a record which showed that the 2017 tax legislation was not intended to repeal the rest of ACA. And, indeed, virtually every GOP incumbent who ran in 2018 claimed to support protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
Today, a federal judge in Texas plausibly held that the 2017 tax cut rendered the mandate unconstitutional, but he went further and refused to sever the mandate from the rest of the legislation–even the Medicaid expansion, which was logically unrelated to it–on the basis that the intent of the 2017 Congress could not be determined from the record, which allegedly focused solely on the need to cut taxes. Amazing!
I can’t wait to see what Susan Collins says when a reporter asks her if it was her intent to completely repeal the ACA when she voted for the tax cut. Fortunately, the District Court decision is hardly the last word on the matter, but it is incredibly annoying, just the same.