Key Members of Congress Who Passed Obamacare Tell Court: Cost-Sharing Reduction Payments Are Lawful and Critical to Effective Operation of ACA

“Congress provided funding for them in the same permanent appropriation that funds the law’s premium tax credits.”

Washington, DC – Following President Trump’s decision to stop making critical cost-sharing reduction payments to health insurance companies, 18 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit in federal district court, asking a judge to compel those payments as required by the Affordable Care Act. Constitutional Accountability Center – which represents leading Members of Congress who helped enact the ACA in filing a friend of the court brief in support of the states – issued the following statement:  

“President Trump has taken a flawed legal position,” said CAC President Elizabeth Wydra, “in his effort to sabotage the Affordable Care Act – a decision that could harm millions of Americans and also blow a nearly $200 billion hole in the deficit over a decade. None of this is necessary. As Members of Congress responsible for enacting the Affordable Care Act know better than anyone, Obamacare without doubt provides funding for these cost-sharing reduction payments.”
“These payments are essential to how the ACA was designed to operate,” continued CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod, “and that’s why Congress drafted the ACA to fund them out of the same permanent appropriation that funds the tax credits that low and middle-income buyers get directly when they buy health insurance on the exchanges. President Trump’s needless, harmful decision violates the law, and the courts should require the Administration to make these payments.”



Brief of Members of Congress in State of California, et al. v. Trump:


Constitutional Accountability Center ( is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.


More from

Corporate Accountability

Intuit, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

In Intuit Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the FTC’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders against false and misleading advertising is constitutional.
Rule of Law
June 20, 2024

Opinion | The tragedy of the Supreme Court’s bump stock ruling

Washington Post
Don’t let technicalities, or a refusal to use common sense, become the enemy of public...
By: Nina Henry
Access to Justice
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court rejects artificial limit on liability for speech-based retaliation by government officers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino, a case in...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: In narrow ruling, Supreme Court rejects baseless effort to shield corporate-derived income from taxation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Moore v. United...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Rule of Law
June 19, 2024

The Supreme Court’s approach on ‘history and tradition’ is irking Amy Coney Barrett

Washington (CNN) — On a Supreme Court where the conservative supermajority increasingly leans on history as a...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Devan Cole, John Fritze