Health-Law Challenger’s Standing in Supreme Court Case Is Questioned

[question everything]

Source: WSJ

FREDERICKSBURG, Va.—The lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court battle over the health law’s insurance tax credits appears to qualify for veterans’ medical coverage, raising questions about his ability to challenge the law.

David King is one of four plaintiffs in a case before the court next month that could halt Affordable Care Act subsidies that make insurance cheaper for millions of Americans. At issue is whether the wording of the law allows the Obama administration to distribute tax credits to residents of up to 37 states that don’t run their insurance exchanges, including Virginia, where the plaintiffs live. The plaintiffs have persuaded courts to hear their case on the grounds that the subsidies allegedly harm them by subjecting them to the law’s requirement to carry insurance or pay a penalty. Without the subsidies, insurance would be too expensive for them, they contend, thus making them exempt from having to pay the fine for lacking insurance.

(snip)

Legal experts say the fact that Mr. King could avoid paying the penalty for lacking insurance by enrolling in VA coverage undermines his legal right to bring the case, known as “standing.” The wife of a second plaintiff has described her husband on social media as being a Vietnam veteran. The government previously questioned the standing of a third plaintiff on the grounds that her income may exempt her from paying the penalty for lacking insurance, but a lower court didn’t address the issue.

Standing issues with these three plaintiffs don’t jeopardize the case, legal experts say, because only one plaintiff needs standing for the suit to proceed before the court. Instead, they could create skepticism about the strength of the challengers’ case and highlight the difficulty of finding plaintiffs to show the health law’s subsidies harm Americans, these experts say. The fourth plaintiff, Brenda Levy, is a 64-year-old substitute teacher, according to her court declaration.




Read more: http://www.wsj.com/articles/health-law-challengers-standing-in-supreme-court-case-is-questioned-1423264458

---

Meaning, the fourth plaintiff is eligible for Medicare in one year.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the insurance-subsidies case on March 4

[kelliekat44]

1. Does this mean that the Court could change its mind and wait a year before taking up the case? nt

[question everything]

2. Not a legal person but I think that the date is set

March 4th. But we should know the directions on how the judges would query the attorneys for the plaintiffs.

[riderinthestorm]

3. K&R. Important article. Anything that damages this case is ok with me nt

[ThoughtCriminal]

4. It seems like it is hard to find anyone who is harmed.

If out of the millions who THINK they are, they come up with four and three are questionable.

I know a few who say they being forced to buy insurance that they can't afford, but refuse to check the marketplace to see if that is actually true.

[question everything]

5. Update: New Questions Swirl on an Affordable Care Act Challenger

One of the plaintiffs in the Supreme Court case against the Affordable Care Act listed a short-term-stay motel as her address when she joined the lawsuit, potentially calling into question her basis for suing. Rose Luck is among four plaintiffs suing the Obama administration to eliminate tax credits under the law that make health insurance cheaper for millions of Americans. They say the wording of the 2010 law allows consumers to tap the credits only in states that run their own insurance exchanges, and not their home state of Virginia, which is one of as many as 37 states that use the federal enrollment system.

The plaintiffs say that, by making their insurance more affordable, the tax credits subject them to the law’s requirement that they carry insurance or pay a fee, which they oppose.

Ms. Luck described herself in court papers as a 55-year-old resident of Petersburg, Va., in the fall of 2013, when the litigation was initiated. The address she provided is for the American Inn motel a short distance from Interstate 95. A receptionist at the inn said Sunday that Ms. Luck didn’t currently live there and that residents weren’t allowed to stay more than 28 days.

(snip)

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, the libertarian think tank that initiated and bankrolled the case, said it believes all the plaintiffs are still entitled to bring the case... CEI spokeswoman Annie Dwyer confirmed that staff knew Ms. Luck used a motel address when the suit was filed and that she was no longer there. Attempts to reach Ms. Luck were unsuccessful.

(snip)

The fourth plaintiff in the case, Ms. Levy, is a 64-year-old substitute teacher who will turn 65 and become eligible for Medicare in June, the month the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case. She said at her Richmond home Saturday that she couldn’t recall how or when she had become involved in the case and said several times that she and the other plaintiffs had been told not to talk about it. She said she had little knowledge of the case’s progress, including when it had been filed, guessing only that she had become a participant before that date. Ms. Levy’s log cabin-style home in a wooded suburban drive is about 15 minutes away by car from the federal courts where the case was initially heard.

(snip)

A spokesman for Chesterfield County Public Schools, which Ms. Levy had listed as her employer in most of her recent campaign-donation filings, said her annual rate of pay was less than $10,000. A single person earning that amount wouldn’t have to pay the penalty if she went without coverage and would make too little to qualify for any tax credits.

More..

http://www.wsj.com/articles/new-questions-swirl-on-an-affordable-care-act-challenger-1423527427