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.”

#

Resources:

Brief of Members of Congress in State of California, et al. v. Trump: https://www.theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/California-v-Trump-Amicus.pdf

##

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) 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

Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research

In Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research, the Supreme Court is considering whether a federal law that requires the FCC to establish programs making internet access more affordable is unconstitutional under the nondelegation doctrine. 
Rule of Law
January 10, 2025

TV (C-SPAN): Elizabeth Wydra on Trump Sentencing in New York Hush Money Case

C-SPAN
[embed]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n7g_TJRor4[/embed] Constitutional Accountability Center's Elizabeth Wydra talked about President-elect Trump's sentencing in his New York...
Rule of Law
January 14, 2025

Civil Rights-Era Abuses Could Return to the FBI Under Kash Patel | Opinion

Newsweek
With the recent start of the 119th Congress and the imminent beginning of a second Trump administration,...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Immigration and Citizenship
January 15, 2025

Birthright Citizenship 101

Thank you to our partners at UnidosUS for translating this resource into Spanish. Links to PDF versions...
Access to Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates

In United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act violates the Appointments...
Rule of Law
January 10, 2025

CAC (Bloomberg): CAC’s Wydra Joins Bloomberg’s Balance of Power to Discuss TikTok Supreme Court Case

Bloomberg TV