Latest news with #Obamacare
USA Today
a day ago
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court scuttled one way judges blocked Trump policies but others remain
After the Supreme Court limited nationwide blocks on Trump policies, judges have hindered his priorities through class actions and administrative challenges. WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump recently declared victory against what he called "radical left judges" blocking his second-term policies − such as toughening immigration enforcement and reducing the federal workforce − after the Supreme Court pulled the rug out from under their reasoning. But at least seven judges − four appointed by Republican presidents, including one by Trump − have continued to block Trump policies under legal strategies that the high-court justices suggested in their landmark ruling. From New Hampshire to Texas, judges with lifetime appointments to the federal bench have temporarily blocked Trump's policies through two bedrock legal strategies that allow a president's opponents to challenge federal polices: class-action lawsuits and administrative challenges. The latest blocks hit the Republican chief executive's restrictions on birthright citizenship, deportations under the Alien Enemies Act and layoffs at the Department of Health and Human Services. More: Supreme Court hands down wins for Trump and Obamacare: Recap of the rulings Those orders came after the Supreme Court changed the litigation landscape on June 27 with a decision in a dispute over Trump's executive order restricting birthright citizenship. In the case called Trump v. CASA, the justices limited nationwide injunctions that individual judges had been issuing − a ruling that the president and his top Justice Department appointees celebrated at the White House soon after. But even the Supreme Court justices suggested class actions or administrative challenges could take their place − and judges around the country were listening. "The short answer," according to Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, is that the impact of the court's decision "is likely to be muted." "Look, there's lots of other ways to get widespread relief," Bagley told USA TODAY. "The fact is they are available now." Under class actions, judges can broaden a case from a handful of people to thousands or even millions who argue they were all harmed by a Trump policy. Decisions then carry widespread and potentially nationwide impact. More: Thousands of federal employees are on a roller coaster of being fired, rehired Another strategy is to challenge a regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act, a perennial workhorse since 1946, after the expansion of federal agencies under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that allows legal opponents to argue government policies are irrational or without justification. A judge who agrees with people or groups challenging a policy can then 'set aside' the regulation, which traditionally invalidated it for the whole country. Both legal strategies have drawbacks and experts said the Supreme Court may eventually put limits on these sorts of lawsuits, too. But the associate justices who work alongside Chief Justice John Roberts just laid out a roadmap for them to challenge government policies and lower court federal judges have already begun certifying class actions and upholding administrative challenges. Presidents of both parties complained about judges blocking policies nationwide Nationwide injunctions have been a thorn in the side of presidential administrations of both parties. The argument against them is that a district court judge in one of 94 jurisdictions nationwide shouldn't be able to halt a policy for the entire country, whether it's then-President Joe Biden's forgiveness of student loans or Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship spelled out via executive order on the first day of his second term. The number of nationwide blocks on administration policies exploded in recent decades. George W. Bush faced six, Barack Obama had 12 and Biden had 14, according to a study in Harvard Law Review. Trump faced 64 in his first term and dozens more in the first months of his second term. More: How Trump's clash with the courts is brewing into an 'all-out war' Attorney General Pam Bondi complained at a news conference the day of the Supreme Court's CASA decision that 35 of the first 40 national blocks on Trump policies came from five jurisdictions, where regional judges thought they were 'emperors." 'These judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation,' Trump said June 27. 'This was a colossal abuse of power.' Supreme Court upends nationwide injunctions in birthright case Rather than rule on the constitutionality of Trump's birthright order in the CASA case, Justice Amy Coney Barrett's 6-3 majority opinion focused on judges blocking presidential policies. She wrote that under the 1789 Judiciary Act, regional judges lacked that authority unless necessary to provide 'complete relief to the plaintiffs before the court.' Barrett's opinion ordered judges to review their nationwide injunctions within 30 days, which experts expect to lead to many being abandoned. But justices offered suggestions for where litigants could turn next to challenge the government. More: Trump praises Amy Coney Barrett, rips NYC mayoral candidate Mamdani: Recap Justice Samuel Alito, who agreed with Barrett, suggested people could file class-action lawsuits. The hitch is that it can be time-consuming and costly to get a judge to sort out who might be harmed by an administration policy and certify a class of litigants. 'Putting the kibosh on universal injunctions does nothing to disrupt' the requirements of class-action lawsuits, Alito wrote. 'But district courts should not view today's decision as an invitation to certify nationwide classes without scrupulous adherence to the rigors of' class action rules. Alan Trammell, a law professor at Washington and Lee University in Virginia, said after Barrett's ruling that class actions 'are going to bear a whole lot more of the weight of this litigation.' But Alito 'more or less said the quiet part out loud' that it could be hard to get judges to certify classes, Trammell said. 'Depending on your perspective, there is the risk or the possibility that there will be these snap decisions or what somebody referred to as drive-by class actions when it's supposed to be a fairly rigorous process,' Trammell told USA TODAY. But other experts said it won't be that hard to get judges to certify class actions. That's because in cases against the government, people are trying to halt a policy. In cases against another person or business, people are often trying to win damages, which can get complicated as judges resolve who deserves a share of the money and how much. David Marcus, a law professor at the University of California Los Angeles, studied class actions beginning in 2011, when the Supreme Court tightened restrictions on them, and found courts were still favorable to litigants in 75% of cases through 2020. 'There shouldn't be a lot of fights over whether the evidence supports classification,' Davis told USA TODAY. 'Most of them are quite easy, clear-cut cases.' Judges swiftly declare class actions for birthright, asylum cases Judges have already begun certifying classes of plaintiffs challenging the Trump administration in the month since the high court's decision in late June. The same day as Barrett's ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a nationwide class-action lawsuit against Trump's birthright citizenship order in New Hampshire before the same judge who ordered the nationwide injunction in the CASA case. On July 10, U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante temporarily blocked Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship by ruling the litigants could proceed as a class. The class covers all children or future children born after Feb. 20, 2025, to parents who weren't citizens or legal permanent residents. Laplante found the children 'have demonstrated likelihood' of eventually winning the case and 'are likely to suffer irreparable harm' if the policy isn't blocked while the case is litigated. Marcus, the UCLA professor, called the ruling "bullet-proof." "It's not a quick-and-dirty order," Marcus said. "It's a picture-perfect administration of well-settled doctrine." In another case in Washington D.C., three nonprofits challenged a Trump proclamation issued on Inauguration Day 2025 that disallowed immigrants from remaining in the country while pursuing asylum claims. On July 2, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss declared anyone affected by Proclamation 10888 a class and overturned it. Moss ruled that nothing in the Immigration and Nationality Act or the Constitution grants the president the sweeping authority in his proclamation. The Trump administration appealed the ruling July 3. Even before the CASA decision, federal judges in two cases blocked the government from deporting Venezuelans under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act as alleged gang members of Tren de Aragua. In southern Texas, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriquez, who was appointed by Trump, certified a class for Venezuelans who were designated enemy aliens. Rodriguez permanently blocked the administration from using the statute to deport alleged gang members. In southern New York, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein also certified a class and temporarily blocked deportations. The government has appealed both decisions to circuit courts. What is the Administrative Procedure Act? Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who also joined Barrett in the CASA decision, suggested another remedy. He wrote that litigants may ask a judge under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to ''set aside' a new agency rule' while a case is argued. Adam Zimmerman, a law professor at the University of Southern California, said Kavanaugh and Chief Justice John Roberts have each written favorably about litigants challenging government policies under the APA. If someone challenged that strategy, they could side with justices who opposed Barrett's opinion − Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson − to uphold the strategy. "I think the court didn't just open the door open to nationwide relief, I think there's a really good chance there are five justices who are ready to walk right through it," Zimmerman told USA TODAY. Some judges have begun doing just that. One technicality is that the APA covers department regulations, not the president. After Trump issues an executive order, agencies adopt regulations to put it into effect. The process can take months or years as agencies make initial proposals and gather public comment before issuing a final rule. The APA sets out the procedures for adopting regulations and also the rules for how judges review them. Litigants challenge the regulations, not the president's order. "A president telling his subordinates to think about doing nasty stuff is not enough for the courts to get involved," Bagley said. "The agencies have to do the nasty stuff." Judge blocks HHS layoffs under APA as 'arbitrary and capricious' In federal court in Rhode Island, 19 states challenged the firing of thousands of workers from the Department of Health and Human Services by claiming the move deprived them of services for citizens that Congress mandated. HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy acknowledged to reporters that in making the staffing cuts that '20% would have to be reinstalled because we'll make mistakes.' He said science jobs and frontline health jobs weren't cut. On July 1, U.S. District Judge Melissa DuBose temporarily blocked the layoffs based on violations of the APA by ruling HHS's action 'was both arbitrary and capricious as well as contrary to law.' More: Judge says Donald Trump cannot downsize federal agencies without Congress 'Yet another group of plaintiffs seek relief from a federal court to halt sweeping changes to a federal agency's operations which they claim disregard congressionally mandated programs to the detriment and peril of all who live in the United States,' DuBose wrote. Justice Department lawyers urged the judge July 11 to restrict her block to only the programs affected in states participating in the lawsuit. DuBose asked for more written arguments by July 31 about how the Supreme Court decision could affect the case. Judge halts 'slapdash approach' to erasing HHS web pages In federal court in Washington, D.C., HHS got into another legal scrape when the advocacy group Doctors for America challenged its decision to take down web pages filled with vital healthcare information. The removals, which included the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Food and Drug Administration, were based on another one of Trump's Inauguration Day executive orders from Jan. 20 declaring only two sexes and forbidding government spending on 'gender ideology.' More: Federal health agency finalizes mass layoffs after Supreme Court lifts pause On July 3, U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled the department took 'a slapdash approach' by removing information that mentioned 'gender' or 'pregnant people' from pages that doctors had come to rely upon. He ordered the department to restore the missing pages but said the government could take them down later if done through 'reasoned decisionmaking.' 'This case involves government officials acting first and thinking later,' Bates wrote, by removing 'hundreds or even thousands of health care webpages and datasets.' The government submitted a report July 18 saying that 67 web pages out of 212 identified in the lawsuit had been restored. Six web pages had been removed for reasons other than a memo from the Office of Personnel Management or the HHS guidance disputed in the lawsuit. Officials continue to review other web pages for restoration "as soon as practically possible," the government report said. Judge 'set aside' DHS directive to end work permits for Haitians In federal court in New York, nine Haitians and two advocacy groups sued the Department of Homeland Security to prevent an early end to a temporary program providing work permits and protection from deportation after earthquakes. On July 1, U.S. District Judge Brian Cogan decided under the APA to temporarily 'set aside' DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's directive to end the program that began in 2010 and was extended several times. Noem sought to end the program six months early on Aug. 3. Cogan distinguished his ruling from an injunction. He said the government wouldn't be hurt by a postponement and that the government could still end the program if it went through the right steps. 'These orders are different in nature from injunctions, which prohibit an agency from taking a certain action at all, ever,' Cogan wrote. Government lawyers submitted a letter July 18 saying Noem acknowledged the temporary program would end Feb. 3, 2026, as scheduled under the last extension. What's next? Experts place no 'strong bets' given high stakes of the disputes As judges increasingly wade into class actions and administrative challenges, legal experts say the Supreme Court could eventually tinker with those legal strategies, too. 'I actually worry that sometimes the harder cases make bad law,' Zimmerman said. 'I do worry that with the political stakes involved, the Supreme Court might feel pressure to make a rushed or bad decision that could have effects on other types of really beneficial class actions. I hope that doesn't happen.' More: Trump wins again. Conservatives like Amy Coney Barrett again. Supreme Court takeaways Another possibility deals with the APA. Judges have 'set aside' regulations, effectively invalidating them for the entire country, which Bagley calls 'a national injunction under another name.' But he argued that judges could begin limiting regulatory remedies to the participants in lawsuits, rather than the whole country, just as the Supreme Court limited nationwide injunctions in CASA. 'I think we're going to see some development of the law,' Bagley said. 'I think we can't make strong bets at this point about how the law will develop.'
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
10 million more people will be uninsured because of Trump's mega-package, CBO forecasts
The sweeping tax and spending cuts package that President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4 is expected to leave 10 million more people without health insurance in 2034, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate released Monday. The projection reflects last-minute alterations to the Senate legislation that changed the CBO's prior forecast that 11.8 million more people would be uninsured in a decade. (The Senate version of the 'big, beautiful bill' ultimately became the law.) Just before it approved its version of the bill, the Senate yanked a provision that would have reduced federal Medicaid support for states that use their own funds to provide undocumented residents and others with health insurance similar to Medicaid. The CBO's prior coverage loss estimate included 1.4 million people in such state programs. Separately, the CBO has projected that an additional 5.1 million more people would be uninsured in 2034 due to the expiration of the enhanced Affordable Care Act premium subsidies that are set to lapse at year's end, as well as a rule proposed by the Centers on Medicare and Medicaid Services governing Obamacare enrollment and eligibility. (The rule has since been changed and finalized, but CBO has yet to update that part of its estimate.) Although the CBO's latest estimate did not break down the impact of different provisions in the law, it previously provided details of the House-passed version, which has some differences. The Medicaid provisions are expected to drive the most loss in coverage by far. Some 7.8 million more people would be uninsured in 2034 due to the changes, with 4.8 million of them being affected by the addition of work requirements for many low-income adult enrollees who gained coverage under Medicaid expansion, according to the CBO's review of the House bill. (The final law extends the requirement to work, volunteer, enroll in classes or attend job training for at least 80 hours a month to parents of children ages 14 and older. The House bill exempted parents of dependent children.) Other Medicaid provisions that are expected to result in coverage loss include requiring more frequent eligibility reviews of Medicaid expansion enrollees, delaying implementation of two Biden administration enrollment and eligibility rules, and barring states from levying new or increased taxes on health care providers, according to the CBO's review of the House bill. (The final law also reduces the cap on provider taxes in expansion states.) The CBO estimate released Monday reaffirmed its earlier forecast that the mega-package is expected to increase the deficit by $3.4 trillion over the next decade when compared with current law, under which the individual income tax provisions of the 2017 tax cuts law would have expired at year's end.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Republicans hurt rural Americans with their beautiful bill. Then they clapped.
Republicans have officially made life more difficult for their rural constituents, and it seems like they're more than content letting people suffer. They actually celebrated it. On July 4, Friday, President Donald Trump signed his spending package, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, into law. Now, it's only a matter of time before we start seeing the consequences of $1 trillion in Medicaid cuts over a decade. Of those cuts, there will be an estimated loss of $155 billion in Medicaid funding to rural areas. 'It's the single worst piece of legislation I've seen in my lifetime, and it is a congressional Republican and presidential attack on rural America,' Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, said on CNN, adding that about 200,000 people in his state could lose coverage. In my home state of North Carolina, Republican Sen. Thom Tillis estimated a $32 billion impact on the state over the next 10 years. Tillis was one of the few GOP senators to vote against the bill. Opinion: Tillis' departure signifies troubling shift. Can any Republican stand up to Trump? These funding cuts won't just affect individuals who rely on Medicaid for health care services. According to one analysis, more than 300 hospitals in rural areas would be at risk of closure because of the loss of Medicaid dollars. Here is the question: Do Republicans have a plan for helping these communities, or will they be too busy high-fiving each other? After all, rural America overwhelmingly voted for Trump. So now, will the GOP do anything to help Republican voters and counties? History tells us that's not likely. Republicans have abandoned rural America Take the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare. Republicans have been trying to 'repeal and replace' the program since it became law in 2010. Yet despite their best efforts, the GOP has never seemed able to repeal it, much less find a suitable replacement. Trump famously said he had "concepts of a plan" for what could replace Obamacare, but nothing has actually come to fruition either time he's been in office. Or look at how the Republicans dismantled Roe v. Wade through the courts and implemented abortion bans across the country under the guise of 'protecting life.' Instead, health outcomes are worse. Infant mortality rates have risen in states with abortion bans. Women in states with abortion bans are more likely to die before, during or shortly after childbirth. These bans haven't stopped abortions, either – they've just made things less safe. Opinion: Planned Parenthood isn't the only loser in Supreme Court case. Women lose, too. If Republican lawmakers were serious about protecting life, they would be combating the country's infant and maternal mortality rates instead of decimating access to abortion services. They would have a plan to fix it instead of moving on to find other things to take away from Americans. So, what is Congress doing to help? Congress appears to recognize that rural communities are in need. At least, the Republicans in charge want it to seem that way. The legislature allotted $50 billion for a rural hospital fund over the next five years – far less than what is needed to make up for the loss of Medicaid dollars. Opinion alerts: Get columns from your favorite columnists + expert analysis on top issues, delivered straight to your device through the USA TODAY app. Don't have the app? Download it for free from your app store. There are plenty of people who will say Republican voters are getting what they deserve – after all, this is what the majority of rural America voted for. I choose to believe that no one deserves to have their health care threatened, regardless of how they cast their ballots. People in rural parts of the country, regardless of how they voted, deserve to have health care that is accessible and affordable. They certainly deserve to have babies with as much medical care as possible. ABC News and NPR recently ran coverage on Trump supporters in several states who are now struggling with what this will mean for them and their communities. While voters aren't as openly regretful of their votes as you might expect, they still have their reservations about what is to come. We know Republican leaders don't care about Democratic voters. But if they cared about their constituents, they would be doing something to make up for this huge loss of funding and medical support. At the very least, state-level parties should begin discussing how they're going to make up the difference. However, it seems more likely that Republicans will do nothing, just as they've done every other time. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno You can read diverse opinions from our USA TODAY columnists and other writers on the Opinion front page, on X, formerly Twitter, @usatodayopinion and in our Opinion newsletter. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Republicans just hurt their own voters to appease Trump | Opinion
Economic Times
5 days ago
- Business
- Economic Times
Obamacare Health Insurance: US health insurers seek largest jump in Obamacare premiums since 2018, shows report
Live Events FAQs (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel U.S. insurers are requesting the biggest premium increases for Obamacare plans since 2018, according to an analysis by health-research firm KFF, prompted by the looming expiry of premium tax credits and potential tariffs on medical goods. Insurers are proposing a median premium increase of 15 per cent for 2026, KFF said, citing data from rate filings of 105 insurers across 19 states. In recent years, premiums in the plans have been relatively flat or grown only industry has been struggling with changing enrollment patterns and rising medical costs. Insurers such as UnitedHealth and Centene have suspended their annual earnings forecasts while others have lowered their profit companies pointed to the slower market growth and a rise in higher-risk patients enrolled in plans under Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The plans primarily serve people who do not get insurance either through an employer, Medicaid for low-income people or Medicare for older companies also cited the planned 2026 expiration of COVID-era premium tax credits as a reason, with KFF's analysis showing insurers will raise premiums by an additional 4 per cent than they would if the enhanced tax credits were 2026, insurers generally reported that the underlying cost of healthcare remains around last year's 8 per cent noted that GLP-1 weight-loss and diabetes drugs are driving costs higher, along with labor market pressures affecting negotiations with healthcare also flagged uncertainty surrounding the "ACA Integrity Rule", a set of regulations finalized to strengthen verification and reduce improper enrollments in Obamacare plans, according to the report.A1. Health insurers Centene, Molina, UnitedHealth, Cigna, Elevance, CVS Health, Oscar Health and Kaiser Permanente are prominent firms.A2. President of USA is Donald Trump
Time of India
5 days ago
- Business
- Time of India
Obamacare Health Insurance: US health insurers seek largest jump in Obamacare premiums since 2018, shows report
U.S. insurers are requesting the biggest premium increases for Obamacare plans since 2018, according to an analysis by health-research firm KFF, prompted by the looming expiry of premium tax credits and potential tariffs on medical goods. Insurers are proposing a median premium increase of 15 per cent for 2026, KFF said, citing data from rate filings of 105 insurers across 19 states. In recent years, premiums in the plans have been relatively flat or grown only modestly. Explore courses from Top Institutes in Select a Course Category Data Science Product Management healthcare MBA Cybersecurity Data Science Design Thinking Digital Marketing Others Management Project Management CXO PGDM Leadership Finance Healthcare Public Policy Artificial Intelligence MCA Data Analytics Operations Management Technology others Degree Skills you'll gain: Duration: 11 Months IIT Madras CERT-IITM Advanced Cert Prog in AI and ML India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 10 Months E&ICT Academy, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati CERT-IITG Prof Cert in DS & BA with GenAI India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 10 Months IIM Kozhikode CERT-IIMK DABS India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 11 Months E&ICT Academy, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati CERT-IITG Postgraduate Cert in AI and ML India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 30 Weeks IIM Kozhikode SEPO - IIMK-AI for Senior Executives India Starts on undefined Get Details The industry has been struggling with changing enrollment patterns and rising medical costs. Insurers such as UnitedHealth and Centene have suspended their annual earnings forecasts while others have lowered their profit targets. Insurance companies pointed to the slower market growth and a rise in higher-risk patients enrolled in plans under Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. The plans primarily serve people who do not get insurance either through an employer, Medicaid for low-income people or Medicare for older adults. The companies also cited the planned 2026 expiration of COVID-era premium tax credits as a reason, with KFF's analysis showing insurers will raise premiums by an additional 4 per cent than they would if the enhanced tax credits were renewed. Live Events For 2026, insurers generally reported that the underlying cost of healthcare remains around last year's 8 per cent increase. Several noted that GLP-1 weight-loss and diabetes drugs are driving costs higher, along with labor market pressures affecting negotiations with healthcare providers. Insurers also flagged uncertainty surrounding the "ACA Integrity Rule", a set of regulations finalized to strengthen verification and reduce improper enrollments in Obamacare plans, according to the report. FAQs Q1. What are top health insurers in US? A1. Health insurers Centene, Molina, UnitedHealth, Cigna, Elevance, CVS Health, Oscar Health and Kaiser Permanente are prominent firms. Q2. Who is President of USA? A2. President of USA is Donald Trump .
