�Թϲ�����

The Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives and 20 Democratic-led states asked the Supreme Court on Friday to declare that the landmark Obamacare healthcare law does not violate the U.S. Constitution as lower courts have found in a lawsuit brought by Republican-led states. The House and the states, including New York and California, want the Supreme Court to hear their appeals of a Dec. 18 ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that deemed the 2010 law's "individual mandate" that required people to obtain health insurance unconstitutional. (Hurley, 1/3)

“Because of the practical importance of the questions presented for review and the pressing need for their swift resolution by this Court, petitioners respectfully request that the Court consider the petition on an expedited schedule,” says a filing brought by 20 states and the District of Columbia. It may seem paradoxical for Democrats to seek a swift resolution to a case that could upend a signature achievement of the Obama presidency. But keeping the case alive — and in the public eye — may help them politically, by sharpening the contrast between the two parties on an issue of great concern to voters. Democrats could return to themes that helped propel them to a House majority in 2018, promising to preserve the health law’s popular protections for Americans with pre-existing health conditions. (Sanger-Katz, 1/3)

The U.S. House of Representatives, which is also defending Obamacare in court, filed a similar petition on Friday asking for immediate Supreme Court review. “Every day that Republicans’ anti-health care lawsuit is allowed to endure is a day that American families will be forced to live in uncertainty and fear," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. (Luthi, 1/3)

There was no immediate reaction from the Trump administration. President Donald Trump had hailed the appeals court ruling, calling it “a win for all Americans.” But many congressional Republicans want to avoid another election-year battle over the ACA, after their unsuccessful effort to repeal it helped flip the House back to the Democrats in 2018. While finding the health law's individual mandate to be unconstitutional, the 5th Circuit made no decision on such popular provisions as protections for people with preexisting conditions, Medicaid expansion, and coverage for young adults up to age 26 on their parents' policies. (Alonso-Zaldivar, 1/3)

The ruling, by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, had little immediate effect on the nation’s consumers because the section the judges invalidated — the requirement that most Americans carry health insurance — was all but removed two years ago by a Republican-led Congress. But in sending the rest of the law back to the Texas judge who ruled all of it unconstitutional, the appeals court left in limbo significant changes the ACA has brought about in the nation’s health-care system. They include an expansion of Medicaid in three dozen states, insurance subsidies for millions of people with coverage through ACA marketplaces and the ability of young adults to stay on parents’ insurance policies until they are 26. And most politically volatile: consumer protections for people with preexisting medical conditions. (Goldstein and Barnes, 1/3)

The Supreme Court previously upheld the law in 2012 and 2015. The justices don’t have to hear the case now, and may have some reluctance to add another high-profile dispute to a term that already includes cases on abortion, gay rights, immigration and President Trump’s financial records. All are set to be decided by late June. The court would have the option to wait and hear the case during its next term, which begins in October 2020, or it could deny the petitions and wait until the lower courts say with certainty what parts of the ACA, if any, remain valid. (Kendall, 1/3)

Robert Henneke, general counsel at the Texas Public Policy Foundation and lead counsel for the individual plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said the Blue states' decision to seek an expedited Supreme Court review is political. The next U.S. presidential election takes place in November. "This is a tactic that reeks of desperation in showing how eager the Democrats are to move the narrative away from the Medicare for All discussion … Their reason for the timing of these filings has more to do with the political calendar than the merits of the case," he said. (Livingston, 1/3)

Most observers in both parties assume the current makeup of the Supreme Court would uphold the Affordable Care Act, given the skepticism over the arguments in the lawsuit challenging the law. But if the fight in the lower courts drags on and Trump is reelected with the chance to replace one of the liberal justices, it would throw the future of ObamaCare into more doubt. “Whether Trump is reelected may a have a lot do with how the courts rule in this case,” said Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan. (Sullivan, 1/5)

“Hundreds of thousands of Connecticut residents have access to affordable healthcare as a result of the ACA. No one wants to return to the days where insurers discriminated against patients with so-called pre-existing conditions like diabetes, childhood cancer or pregnancy,” [Connecticut Attorney General William Tong] said Friday. “No one wants thousands of young people, or hundreds of thousands of Medicaid patients kicked off their plans overnight. The consequences in this case are literally life and death for far too many people in Connecticut.” In Connecticut, 250,000 residents have benefited from the expansion of Medicaid, Tong said. Thousands of people younger than 26 have health insurance through their parents’ plans here, and nearly half a million residents with pre-existing conditions have coverage due to ACA protections. (Carlesso, 1/3)