State legislative group lends backing to health care law

 

Though a lawsuit filed by state attorneys general over the Obama administration’s new health care law is receiving the lion’s share of media attention, a bipartisan group of state lawmakers also wants its voice heard in the court battle — in support of the controversial legislation.

Seventy-one legislators from 26 states have asked for permission to file a legal brief in support of the health care law, according to The Hill, a congressional newspaper in Washington, D.C. The group includes representatives from a dozen states where the governor or the attorney general is already formally lined up against the law.

“Given the Plaintiffs’ emphasis on state sovereignty,” the legislators’ motion says, “the views of State Legislators should not be excluded, particularly since the Plaintiffs purport to represent the interests of state sovereigns in general — when, in fact, many States and their citizens do not agree with Plaintiffs’ view of the Act and, specifically, the expansion of Medicaid.”

The lawmakers’ legal effort is led by Jack Hatch, a state senator in Iowa and the chair of the Working Group of State Legislators for Health Reform. It is also backed by the Progressive States Network, a nonprofit that supports liberal-leaning legislation in the states, and the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive think tank and public interest law firm.

As The Hill notes, many public officials, experts and affected organizations are lining up on each side of the new health care law, including by filing briefs in court. Leading hospital organizations want to file a brief in support of the law, for example, while several incoming Republican governors have already indicated an inclination to move against it. 

 
To read this story online, click here.

 

More from

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

New York v. Trump

In New York v. Trump, the First Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral and categorical decision to freeze all federal funding to programs that do not align with its policy priorities violates federal...
Access to Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Martin v. United States

In Martin v. United States, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Supremacy Clause overrides the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)’s express waiver of sovereign immunity when a federal employee’s actions “have some nexus with...
Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Pacito v. Trump

In Pacito v. Trump, the Ninth Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to dismantle the United States Refugee Assistance Program (USRAP), including by suspending all USRAP funding, violates federal law and the...
Rule of Law
March 13, 2025

March 2025 Newsletter: Ongoing Challenges and New Victories

Rule of Law
March 7, 2025

TV (Bloomberg): Could Trump Saying Musk Heads DOGE Create Legal Issue?

Bloomberg TV
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

Catholic Charities Fort Worth v. Department of Health and Human Services

In Catholic Charities Forth Worth v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Trump administration’s unilateral decision to freeze funding appropriated for...