An Obama appointed judge, Hon. Vince Chhabria, has denied the state of California and 17 other states’ attempt to force the Trump Administration to continue Obamacare CSR payments; payments that have already been deemed un-Constitutional in federal court under the Obama Administration.
Judge Chhabria was unconvinced that there was any immediate threat to consumers that would compel the Judicial Branch to intercede. The Obamacare subsidy payments have already been deemed “illegal” which makes it impossible for Judge Chhabria to issue a restraining order that demands the Trump Administration carry on with “illegal” actions.
The attempts made by California and 17 other states to force the Trump Administration to continue with ObamaCare subsidy payments was disingenuous from the start as expressed by Judge Chhabria:
“And although you wouldn’t know it by reading the state’s papers in this lawsuit, the truth is that most state regulators have devised responses that give millions of low-income people better health coverage options that they otherwise would have had.”
California has decided to avoid considering any “work-around plan” and have since moved to sabotage their own insurance market by adding a 12.4 percent surcharge.
Finding an alternate solution to un-Constitutional ObamaCare subsidies takes much more heavy lifting than just raising the rates and blaming someone else, California has decided on the latter. California will surely blame the stoppage of payments for the dramatic increase in insurance premiums, but should they?
President Trump has only stopped what has been ruled an illegal act on behalf of the Executive Branch. The state of California, and the 17 others listed in the lawsuit, should be blaming the Executive Order that violated the Constitution and allowed the states to rely on funds that were not concrete.
The Trump Administration stands on firm ground in court when it comes to ending the executive order that commissioned ObamaCare Subsidy payments to insurance companies. The Constitution is very clear when it comes to any money spent on behalf of the Executive Branch via the Appropriations Clause, as explained by the Heritage Foundation:
The Appropriations Clause is the cornerstone of Congress’s “power of the purse.” It assigns to Congress the role of final arbiter of the use of public funds. The source of Congress’s power to spend derives from Article I, Section 8, Clause1. The Appropriations Clause provides Congress with a mechanism to control or to limit spending by the federal government. The Framers chose the particular language of limitation, not authorization, for the first part of the clause and placed it in Section 9 of Article I, along with other restrictions on government actions to limit, most notably, executive action.
The essence of the Appropriations Clause is; the Executive Branch of government cannot spend any funds without it first being approved through Congress. No funds were ever approved through Congress to be spent on CSR payments, which is why a federal court deemed them “illegal” in 2016.