What Happens If Boehner’s Lawsuit Succeeds?

Experts are split over whether Obamacare delays were legal.

Speaker of the House John Boehner, R-Ohio, answers questions during his weekly news conference on Capitol Hill, May 8, 2014 in Washington, D.C.
National Journal
Sam Baker
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Sam Baker
July 17, 2014, 1 a.m.

House Re­pub­lic­ans might have a point about Obama­care’s em­ploy­er man­date — they just can’t do much about it by su­ing the pres­id­ent.

The House is plan­ning to sue Pres­id­ent Obama (and, more to the point, the IRS) over delays in the health care law’s em­ploy­er man­date. It took the first of­fi­cial step in that dir­ec­tion Wed­nes­day, with a hear­ing in the House Rules Com­mit­tee over a res­ol­u­tion to au­thor­ize the law­suit.

As a whole, the leg­al world is pretty skep­tic­al of House Re­pub­lic­ans’ plan, largely be­cause leg­al ex­perts from both sides of the aisle doubt the House can clear a key pro­ced­ur­al hurdle.

But what if it can? Leg­al ex­perts are much more di­vided over the strength of the un­der­ly­ing case against the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s delays. Even some al­lies of the Af­ford­able Care Act say Re­pub­lic­ans have a sol­id ar­gu­ment that the delays were il­leg­al, while oth­ers fear the case could strip fu­ture pres­id­ents of ba­sic powers.

“I think it would make gov­ern­ment un­work­able,” said Si­mon Laz­arus, seni­or coun­sel at the lib­er­al Con­sti­tu­tion­al Ac­count­ab­il­ity Cen­ter.

Laz­arus said delays in the em­ploy­er man­date are no dif­fer­ent from any oth­er ad­min­is­trat­ive delay in im­ple­ment­ing new laws, which are myri­ad. The Su­preme Court has pre­vi­ously ruled that fed­er­al agen­cies can use their own dis­cre­tion about how they al­loc­ate their fi­nite re­sources, and agen­cies are also gen­er­ally able to phase in new re­quire­ments as a way of mak­ing life easi­er for reg­u­lated in­dus­tries and tax­pay­ers.

Ar­guing that Obama didn’t have the au­thor­ity to delay the em­ploy­er man­date would im­plic­ate a host of oth­er delays, Laz­arus said.

He poin­ted to past in­stances in which the IRS has offered “trans­ition re­lief” to phase in new re­port­ing re­quire­ments. The En­vir­on­ment­al Pro­tec­tion Agency has also slowed the re­lease of new reg­u­la­tions while it gathered more sci­entif­ic evid­ence and gave reg­u­lated in­dus­tries more time to come in­to com­pli­ance — delays that be­nefited the busi­ness in­terests with whom Re­pub­lic­ans are tra­di­tion­ally aligned.

“I don’t read­ily see a way of dis­tin­guish­ing all of those things,” Laz­arus said.

But oth­ers aren’t so sure.

Nich­olas Bagley, a law pro­fess­or at the Uni­versity of Michigan, said Boehner’s un­der­ly­ing com­plaint about em­ploy­er-man­date delays seems to have some mer­it. Past ex­amples of “en­force­ment dis­cre­tion” aren’t quite com­par­able to delays in the em­ploy­er man­date, he said.

Bagley drew a dis­tinc­tion between agen­cies fail­ing to meet their own dead­lines versus ig­nor­ing stat­utory re­quire­ments.

The Af­ford­able Care Act said em­ploy­ers have to provide health in­sur­ance to their em­ploy­ees or pay a fine, and that re­quire­ment took ef­fect Jan. 1, 2014. So, as crit­ics of the delays see it, a tax li­ab­il­ity kicked in Jan. 1 and is in place today, even if the IRS isn’t en­for­cing it.

The reg­u­la­tions EPA slow-walked didn’t work that way, Bagley said: There, Con­gress dir­ec­ted the agency to write reg­u­la­tions, and new en­vir­on­ment­al stand­ards didn’t take ef­fect un­til those reg­u­la­tions were is­sued. So, while it’s true that EPA missed Con­gress’s dead­lines, it was a dead­line im­posed on EPA — not on the people EPA reg­u­lates.

“There’s a big dif­fer­ence between an agency fail­ing to hit a dead­line for do­ing something on its own “¦ and it’s an­oth­er thing al­to­geth­er for an agency to waive a dead­line for private in­di­vidu­als,” Bagley said.

Laz­arus, on the oth­er hand, said the GOP is over­sell­ing the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s ac­tions. If it had said it nev­er in­ten­ded to im­ple­ment a policy Con­gress passed, sure, that would be il­leg­al, he said. But this was simply a delay — one de­signed to make sure the policy could be im­ple­men­ted well, in the long run.

“This is not a re­fus­al to en­force, or a de­cision not to en­force,” he said. “It is a de­cision about phas­ing in en­force­ment.”

The IRS has delayed the em­ploy­er man­date twice. The first one, an­nounced in 2013, was an across-the-board delay, for every­one, de­signed to give em­ploy­ers more time to come in­to com­pli­ance with the new policy and to up­date their re­cord-keep­ing sys­tems.

And the White House ap­peared to give it­self some leg­al wiggle room on that delay. It tech­nic­ally only delayed a re­port­ing re­quire­ment for em­ploy­ers, which wasn’t tied to the Jan. 1 dead­line. That delay made the man­date it­self un­en­force­able, but by the let­ter of the law, it didn’t con­flict with a stat­utory dead­line.

Bagley said he’s skep­tic­al of that ra­tionale — trans­ition re­lief is de­signed to give a reg­u­lated group more time to come in­to com­pli­ance, and the em­ploy­er man­date had been on the books for three years by the time it was first delayed. But it’s an ar­gu­ment the ad­min­is­tra­tion could make.

The second delay is harder to jus­ti­fy, at least us­ing the tra­di­tion­al ra­tionale for trans­ition re­lief, Bagley said. Earli­er this year, the White House said it would delay en­force­ment un­til 2016 for mid­sized em­ploy­ers. Lar­ger firms have to com­ply in 2015, but they have to cov­er only 70 per­cent of their full-time work­ers that year, and 90 per­cent after that, to avoid pen­al­ties. The law it­self calls for 100 per­cent cov­er­age.

Al­low­ing em­ploy­ers to cov­er few­er em­ploy­ees doesn’t seem like a plaus­ible re­sponse to re­port­ing or re­cord-keep­ing re­quire­ments, Bagley said.

“The second round of delays, it’s ex­tremely dif­fi­cult to see how they could be jus­ti­fied on that basis,” he said.

In short, Boehner might be onto something — if Con­gress im­posed a spe­cif­ic tax li­ab­il­ity on a spe­cif­ic date, and the IRS simply isn’t en­for­cing it for two years, and then only part of the way, there’s at least an ar­gu­ment to be made that the delays aren’t leg­al, Bagley said.

But that doesn’t mean Boehner’s law­suit will ac­com­plish much.

For starters, by the time it works its way through the courts, the em­ploy­er man­date will prob­ably be in ef­fect.

Wal­ter Del­linger, a former act­ing so­li­cit­or gen­er­al, test­i­fied Wed­nes­day that he didn’t think the case could make it to the Su­preme Court be­fore early 2016, mean­ing a rul­ing wouldn’t come be­fore June 2016. The man­date would already be in ef­fect by then, as­sum­ing it isn’t delayed fur­ther, so a rul­ing or­der­ing the IRS to im­ple­ment it wouldn’t be es­pe­cially sig­ni­fic­ant.

(Plus, Re­pub­lic­ans will pre­sum­ably be more fo­cused on Hil­lary Clin­ton by then and less mo­tiv­ated to im­peach Obama, which is what this is about in the first place.)

And that’s as­sum­ing the law­suit can ac­tu­ally make it through the courts, which is a long shot. Al­though Bagley is skep­tic­al of the man­date delays, he says it’s un­am­bigu­ously clear that the House doesn’t have the leg­al stand­ing to sue Obama. The case should be dis­missed without a rul­ing on the delays’ leg­al­ity, he said.

Del­linger and Laz­arus also test­i­fied Wed­nes­day that the House lacks stand­ing. Del­linger warned that a de­cision al­low­ing this law­suit to pro­ceed would open the floodgates for Con­gress and the pres­id­ent to take their polit­ic­al dis­putes to court — something the Su­preme Court has act­ively tried to avoid.

Some con­ser­vat­ives agree on the stand­ing is­sue.

“I think that makes it a dif­fi­cult case; “¦ it’s not clear how a dis­pute over en­force­ment of the law ne­ces­sar­ily in­jures the House,” said Jonath­an Adler, a law pro­fess­or at Case West­ern Re­serve Uni­versity.

What We're Following See More »
SHUTDOWN LOOMING
House Approves Spending Bill
14 hours ago
BREAKING

The House has completed it's business for 2016 by passing a spending bill which will keep the government funded through April 28. The final vote tally was 326-96. The bill's standing in the Senate is a bit tenuous at the moment, as a trio of Democratic Senators have pledged to block the bill unless coal miners get a permanent extension on retirement and health benefits. The government runs out of money on Friday night.

HEADS TO OBAMA
Senate Approves Defense Bill
15 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Senate passed the National Defense Authorization Act today, sending the $618 billion measure to President Obama. The president vetoed the defense authorization bill a year ago, but both houses could override his disapproval this time around.

Source:
ANTI-MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE
Trump Chooses Hardee’s/Carl’s Jr CEO as Labor Sec
17 hours ago
BREAKING
BUCKING THE BOSS?
Trump Cabinet Full of TPP Supporters
17 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

"President-elect Donald Trump railed against the Trans-Pacific Partnership on his way to winning the White House and has vowed immediately to withdraw the U.S. from the 12-nation accord. Several of his cabinet picks and other early nominees to top posts, however, have endorsed or spoken favorably about the trade pact, including Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad, announced Wednesday as Mr. Trump’s pick for ambassador to China, and retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, Mr. Trump’s pick to head the Department of Defense."

Source:
WWE WRESTLING OWNER
Trump to Nominate Linda McMahon to Head SBA
1 days ago
THE LATEST
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login