The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: Elderberry on June 24, 2019, 06:35:33 pm
-
SCOTUSblog by Amy Howe 6/24/2019
This morning the Supreme Court issued orders from last week’s conference. The justices granted review in eight cases, for a total of five hours of argument, including in a trio of cases involving the federal government’s failure to fully reimburse health insurance companies for losses created as a result of the Affordable Care Act. The justices did not, however, act on the federal government’s petitions seeking review of three lower-court decisions blocking it from ending the program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA.
One part of the Affordable Care Act was drafted to encourage insurers to provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions. The ACA set up a system to reimburse the insurers who lose money on these policies for some of their losses, but when Congress later restricted the funds available to the Department of Health and Human Services to pay the insurers, the insurers went to court.
Arguing on behalf of one insurer, Moda Health Plan, former U.S. solicitor general Paul Clement (who in 2012 led the challenge in the Supreme Court to the constitutionality of the ACA) told the justices that the “net effect†of Congress’ actions was “a bait-and-switch of staggering dimensions in which the government has paid insurers $12 billion less than what was promised.†The justices granted Moda Health’s petition for review to decide whether Congress can avoid its promise to pay the insurers for losses that they have already suffered just by enacting appropriations riders that restrict the sources of funds available to satisfy the government’s obligations. The company’s case will be argued in the fall at the same time as similar ones filed by Maine Community Health Options and Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance.
Other cases granted today include:
More: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/justices-bulk-up-next-terms-docket/#more-287249 (https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/06/justices-bulk-up-next-terms-docket/#more-287249)
-
It mystifies me why they are avoiding this DACA BS. It seems perfectly clear to me that things created by executive order can be undone the same way.
-
It mystifies me why they are avoiding this DACA BS. It seems perfectly clear to me that thins created by executive order can be undone the same way.
IMO, those 3 rulings were perfectly ripe to be IGNORED!
-
It mystifies me why they are avoiding this DACA BS. It seems perfectly clear to me that thins created by executive order can be undone the same way.
No, they cannot. Once a person has been conferred a benefit by the government, the government cannot simply take that benefit back in an arbitrary or capricious manner, and without due process.
-
No, they cannot. Once a person has been conferred a benefit by the government, the government cannot simply take that benefit back in an arbitrary or capricious manner, and without due process.
@Bill Cipher
Thank you for weighing in counselor! Now I'm positive I'm right.
-
IMO, those 3 rulings were perfectly ripe to be IGNORED!
@EdJames
I assume you are talking about the originals. If so, I completely agree with you!
-
@EdJames
I assume you are talking about the originals. If so, I completely agree with you!
Yes, that is what I meant.
-
@Bill Cipher
Thank you for weighing in counselor! Now I'm positive I'm right.
You’re not, but you’re entitled to wallow in error if it pleases you.
-
Board v. Roth, 408 US 564 (1972).
-
Board v. Roth, 408 US 564 (1972).
ROFLMFAO!!! You think that is even remotely relevant?
-
Yes, that is what I meant.
888high58888
-
ROFLMFAO!!! You think that is even remotely relevant?
It is. But I wouldn’t expect someone like you, who luxuriates in ignorance, to grasp the relevance.
-
It is. But I wouldn’t expect someone like you, who luxuriates in ignorance, to grasp the relevance.
Of course! /s