U.S. asks appeals court to reconsider Obamacare subsidies ruling

WASHINGTON Fri Aug 1, 2014 1:35pm EDT

Juan Ortiz, 67, (L) and his eighteen-month-old grandson Joshua Lopez wait in line at a health insurance enrolment event in Commerce, California March 31, 2014. REUTERS/Lucy Nicholson

Juan Ortiz, 67, (L) and his eighteen-month-old grandson Joshua Lopez wait in line at a health insurance enrolment event in Commerce, California March 31, 2014.

Credit: Reuters/Lucy Nicholson

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department asked a federal appeals court on Friday to reconsider its July 22 ruling that poses a major setback to the Obamacare health insurance overhaul as it could limit the availability of federal health insurance subsidies for millions of people.

In the ruling last month, the appeals court said the subsidies, which help people afford health insurance, may only be paid in states that have their own online health insurance exchanges. There are 36 states that lack their own exchanges, which are a central feature in the Obamacare system.

Five million people could be affected, analysts have estimated, if subsidies were to disappear from the federally created marketplaces that have been set up in the states that did not set up their own exchanges.

In the court filing, the government, as expected, asked the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to review the three-judge panel's decision.

If the court agrees to rehear the case, oral arguments will likely be held later this year, possibly delaying any consideration of the issue by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Government lawyers wrote in the court filing that the July decision, if left intact, would "impose a severe hardship" on people who currently get the subsidies in the form of tax credits. The appeals court's ruling led to "harsh and illogical results," the government lawyers' court filing said.

The decision to rehear the case will be made by the court's 11 active judges. Following a series of appointments to the court made by President Barack Obama, the court's Democratic appointees have a 7-4 majority.

The three-judge panel that ruled in July was split 2-1, with two Republican appointees in the majority.

Separately, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, ruled in favor of the Obama administration in an identical challenge.

The plaintiffs in that case said on Thursday they are planning immediate U.S. Supreme Court review of that ruling, but further action in the Washington appeals court could deter the justices from taking the case at such an early stage.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh, Meredith Mazzilli and Bernard Orr)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (8)
Solkre wrote:
Too bad we have the obstructionists in congress who wouldn’t lift a finger if it helped Obama or the nation. A dying breed doing what it can to create a doomsday scenario; in a last ditch effort to remain relevant in a modern society.

Aug 01, 2014 1:50pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MonitorLizard wrote:
Gradually, all kinds of Obamacare snafus will pop up. This is unfortunate for those enrollees who described the Emperor’s plan as a “miracle” and a “lifesaver.” If 36 states are involved, a believable nightmare will develop for the “insured”, the US government and of course, the insurance companies, who will most surely be calling for quick retribution.

Aug 01, 2014 1:51pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
moonhill wrote:
There is no federal exchange in the Obamacare plan. It was structured that way on purpose to coerce the states to create their own exchanges. To rule any differently would be a gross violation of the rule of law.

Aug 01, 2014 2:16pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.