Feb 17, 2022 · The Attorney General of the District of Columbia announced Thursday that D.C.'s lawsuit against former President Donald Trump's Presidential Inaugural Committee (PIC), as well as the Trump International Hotel and the Trump Organization, will go to trial in September.The lawsuit, filed in January 2020 against the Trump entities, is based on allegation that $1.1 …
The Supreme Court ruled in June 2021 that the challengers to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) lacked standing, effectively throwing out the lawsuit argued by 18 Republican state attorneys general and the Trump Administration. The ACA remains the law of the land, after the defeat of a case that legal experts across the political spectrum viewed as extremely weak.
Feb 17, 2022 · The lawsuit, filed in January 2020 against the Trump entities, is based on allegation that $1.1 million of nonprofit funds were misused to enrich the Trump family. The office of Attorney General ...
The Court did not conclusively preclude any further challenges. But the ACA, now having survived three trips to the Supreme Court and intense congressional repeal efforts, seems more than ever solidly entrenched in American law.Jun 21, 2021
No, you cannot sue a current President of the United States for just anything. They are immune (for the most part) from liability in a personal capacity when acting within their executive power or when completing official acts.Aug 24, 2020
ACA Survives Legal Challenge, Protecting Coverage for Tens of Millions. The Supreme Court ruled in June 2021 that the challengers to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) lacked standing, effectively throwing out the lawsuit argued by 18 Republican state attorneys general and the Trump Administration.Jul 20, 2021
Opinion. In a 5–4 decision, the Court ruled that the President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts.
Presidential immunity Fitzgerald that the President enjoys absolute immunity from civil litigation for official acts undertaken while he or she is President. The Court suggested that this immunity was broad (though not limitless), applying to acts within the "outer perimeter" of the President's official duties.
United States Department of Health and Human Services declared the law unconstitutional in an action brought by 26 states, on the grounds that the individual mandate to purchase insurance exceeds the authority of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
This repeal is still in effect in 2021, eliminating the fine for those without health insurance plans in most states. A few states do have their own mandates in 2021, including California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Washington.Jan 21, 2022
Is Obamacare still in effect? Yes, the Affordable Care Act (also called Obamacare) is still in effect.Dec 8, 2021
These so-called “refusal laws” mean communities that already face discrimination when accessing health care — like LGBTQ people, women, and people of color — could face even more barriers.
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra is leading the charge on a Supreme Court case that will determine whether fake women’s health clinics that work to deceive pregnant women must provide medically accurate and unbiased information on health services, including safe, legal abortion.
The Trump-Pence administration recently announced that the United States Census will ask people about their citizenship status . The change will hurt immigrants and communities of color, likely resulting in an undercount of many immigrant communities.
Amid rampant attacks on reproductive rights, 16 attorneys general recently filed an amicus brief — a common legal document offering expertise — to express their support of safe, legal abortion. The effort helps challenge a dangerous Texas abortion ban that would criminalize health care providers who perform abortions after the second trimester — despite the fact that these are safe and common. The amicus brief was supported by attorneys general of New Jersey, Oregon, and more.
The state attorneys general, led by Texas, filed their lawsuit with a Texas district court in February 2018. The crux of their argument was that the Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in National Federation of Independent Business v.
Striking down the ACA would have increased the number of uninsured people by 21 million, or 69 percent, the Urban Institute estimated in October 2020.
Those filing Supreme Court briefs opposing the Trump Administration and Republican states’ arguments included:
A week after the Senate had approved its draft of the ACA, 14 state attorneys general from Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington, signed a letter to Democratic Congressional leadership requesting the removal of the Nebraska provision from the Senate draft of the act. The letter, organized by South Carolina’s Attorney General Henry McMaster (R), left open the possibility for further litigation. Democrats at the time said that the letter stemmed from political motivations on the part of the signees, some of whom were running in upcoming elections.
President Barack Obama signed the Senate version of the ACA into law on March 23, 2010. After Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) died and Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) won his seat, Democratic leadership feared they would not be able to pass another version through the Senate having lost their filibuster -proof majority. Instead, leadership opted to make changes to the law by passing the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act a week later, which, among its amendments, included the removal of the Nebraska provision from the ACA.
The case was first heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida by Judge Roger Vinson. He ruled that the individual mandate fell outside of the regulatory powers granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause, while also rejecting the claim that requiring states to pay for a portion of expanded Medicaid coverage violated state sovereignty. Judge Vinson concluded that the “individual mandate and the remaining provisions are all inextricably bound together in purpose and must stand or fall as a single unit.” The plaintiffs then appealed the case to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, Georgia. On August 12, 2011, in a 2-1 ruling, the court also found the individual mandate to be unconstitutional. In a departure from the lower court’s ruling, however, the Eleventh Circuit did not find the individual mandate to be inextricable from the ACA, instead finding that the rest of the law should stand.
In a 5-4 opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court upheld the individual mandate as falling within Congress’ power to levy taxes , as opposed to its Commerce Clause authority. However, the justices found the Medicaid expansion to be unconstitutional due to the withholding of funds that would follow from noncompliance with expansion.