
Group of cities sues Trump administration over new changes to Obamacare enrollment and eligibility
The rule, finalized on June 25, shortens the open enrollment period for Americans buying insurance on the marketplace and ends a monthly special enrollment period for people with incomes below 150% of the federal poverty line. It also introduces more preenrollment requirements, such as income verification checks.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services estimated last month between 725,000 and 1.8 million people could lose coverage due to the rule, but said the changes introduce new 'safeguards' against improper enrollment and overspending.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Maryland, was brought by the cities of Chicago, Baltimore and Columbus, Ohio, as well as an association of doctors and a non-profit network of small businesses that rely on the Affordable Care Act marketplace.
They allege that several parts of the new rule violate the ACA and other federal laws, and say the administration ran afoul of federal rulemaking procedures when it created the new policies, including by failing to respond to public comments submitted as the rule was being finalized.
'Rather than reducing the cost of insurance for consumers, or increasing their enrollment rates and benefits, Defendants' new policies will cause at least 1.8 million Americans to lose coverage on the ACA's health insurance Exchanges in 2026 alone and will ultimately result in higher premiums in the long term and higher out-of-pocket costs for the remaining enrollees,' attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in the lawsuit.
The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys with Democracy Forward, are asking the court to wipe away the parts of the new rule they're challenging.
Spokespeople for CMS and its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.
Advocates for the Trump administration's rule changes say the ACA marketplace is rife with fraud because of expanded subsidies, or tax credits that keep Americans' monthly premiums low. Millions of people are enrolling in those low-cost plans even if their income makes them ineligible for heavily subsidized plans, according to conservative think tank Paragon Health Institute.
Congress expanded those subsidies in 2021 during the Covid-19 pandemic, but the temporary tax credits are set to expire at the end of 2025. The beefed-up subsidies helped drive a record 24 million people to sign up for coverage for 2025.
The new rule is set to take effect in late August. The House version of President Donald Trump's agenda bill would codify the rule into law, though the Senate legislation has different provisions, which would also tighten eligibility for subsidies and increase verification requirements.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
18 minutes ago
- CBS News
Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority strikes down 176-year-old abortion ban
The Wisconsin Supreme Court's liberal majority struck down the state's 176-year-old abortion ban on Wednesday, ruling 4-3 that it was superseded by a newer state law that criminalizes abortions only after a fetus can survive outside the womb. State lawmakers adopted the ban in 1849, making it a felony when anyone other than the mother "intentionally destroys the life of an unborn child." It was in effect until 1973, when the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationwide nullified it. Legislators never officially repealed the ban, however, and conservatives argued that the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision to overturn Roe reactivated it. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul, a Democrat, filed a lawsuit that year arguing that the ban was trumped by abortion restrictions legislators enacted during the nearly half-century that Roe was in effect. Kaul specifically cited a 1985 law that essentially permits abortions until viability. Some babies can survive with medical help after 21 weeks of gestation. Sheboygan County District Attorney Joel Urmanski, a Republican, defended the ban in court, arguing that the 1849 ban could coexist with the newer abortion restrictions, just as different penalties for the same crime coexist. Dane County Circuit Judge Diane Schlipper ruled in 2023 that the 1849 ban outlaws feticide — which she defined as the killing of a fetus without the mother's consent — but not consensual abortions. Abortions have been available in the state since that ruling but the state Supreme Court decision gives providers and patients more certainty that abortions will remain legal in Wisconsin. Urmanski asked the state Supreme Court to overturn Schlipper's ruling without waiting for a decision from a lower appellate court. It was expected as soon as the justices took the case that they would overturn the ban. Liberals hold a 4-3 majority on the court and one of them, Janet Protasiewicz, openly stated on the campaign trail that she supports abortion rights. Democratic-backed Susan Crawford defeated conservative Brad Schimel for an open seat on the court in April, ensuring liberals will maintain their 4-3 edge until at least 2028. Crawford has not been sworn in yet and was not part of Wednesday's ruling. She'll play pivotal role, though, in a separate Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin lawsuit challenging the 1849 ban's constitutionality. The high court decided last year to take that case. It's still pending.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Medicaid cuts for immigrants in Trump's ‘big, beautiful bill'
(NewsNation) — The White House has posted a 'mythbuster' fact sheet defending its proposed Medicaid changes in President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' — but is it accurate? The nearly 1,000-page megabill outlines the removal of 'at least 1.4 million' immigrants who are in the United States unlawfully from Medicaid, the administration said. According to the White House, doing so would strengthen Medicaid for 'the American citizens for whom the program was designed — pregnant women, children, people with disabilities, low-income seniors, and other vulnerable low-income families.' That's not entirely true. No, immigrants who have entered and remained in the U.S. illegally are not eligible for Medicaid. Although they might benefit from some of its services — including emergency care — they aren't eligible for federally funded Medicaid coverage. The Congressional Budget Office and research organizations such as the Kaiser Family Foundation and Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy corroborate these restrictions. Trump-Musk feud reignites over the 'big, beautiful bill' The White House's 1.4 million estimate appears to refer to those with questionable immigration status who will lose coverage due to reductions in state health care programs currently providing them with assistance. These programs are funded by the states, not through federal Medicaid dollars. Some emergency services provided by hospitals are available to people lacking a Medicaid-eligible immigration status. Services include 'those requiring immediate attention to prevent death, serious harm or disability, although states have some discretion to determine reimbursable services,' according to the KFF. 5 takeaways as Senate ships Trump's megabill to House The foundation estimated emergency care for undocumented patients accounted for less than 1% of Medicaid spending from 2017 to 2023. Trump and most congressional Republicans claim the reductions aren't true cuts, arguing that no one who should be on Medicaid will lose benefits. 'We're cutting $1.7 trillion in this bill, and you're not going to feel any of it,' Trump said at the White House last week. 5 takeaways as Senate ships Trump's megabill to House But experts and health advocates say a recent CBO analysis confirms that despite Trump's repeated pledges to only cut waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, the legislation would enact an unprecedented reduction in the program currently used by more than 70 million low-income Americans. 'This bill isn't being crafted to improve health care in America, or to improve the Medicaid program, or to improve the [ACA]. The purpose of these cuts in the bill is to try to find savings to pay for tax cuts,' said Andrea Ducas, vice president of health policy at the Democratic-aligned Center for American Progress. NewsNation partner The Hill contributed to this report. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Bloomberg
23 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Bessent Advisor Says Tariffs Could Bring in $300 Billion
Joseph Lavorgna, counselor to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, says 10-12 countries are close to reaching a new trade deal with the US and about another 20 are negotiating in good faith. He talks about the potential revenue from tariffs and the strength of the US dollar on "Bloomberg Surveillance." (Source: Bloomberg)