Last edited Fri Feb 13, 2015, 08:09 PM - Edit history (1)
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1300P-01A.pdf
The Attorney General of Maine agrees with the Federal Government (and against the Governor) that what Maine is proposing violating Federal Law AND does NOT violate the US Constitution.
From the Opinion
The Attorney General of Maine, Janet T. Mills, as interested party-intervenor, argues that the rejection of Maine DHHS's proposed amendment is constitutional.
This concern 2% of 1/3 of the state budget (or .6% of the budget, NOT 6 % 6/10th of a percent). From the Opinion:
MaineCare makes up a major portion of Maine's annual outlays, accounting for just over one-third of the state's total budget in 2013 (Footnote 3)
Foot note 3: Maine's total state and federal Medicaid expenditures for fiscal year 2012 were $2.4 billion. According to Attorney General Mills, coverage for 19- and 20-year-olds (the group for which Maine sought to repeal coverage) represented less than two percent of that figure.
The Court of appeals then went on and said the following but the US SUpreme Court decision in regards to the expansion of Medicaid under ACA:
The Court struck down only the penalty for noncompliance, not the expansion itself. Id. at 2607. That is, the Court held that the U.S. DHHS could not condition the granting of all federal Medicaid funds on a state's participation in the new expanded program, but was permitted to condition funds for the new expanded program on participation in the new program.
In short the 1st Circuit ruled that the US Supreme court case that stuck down the restrictions on the States under the ACA was do to the changes Congress adopted were to FORCE that states to adopt those changes as oppose to technical changes to programs the states already were running under Medicaid:
In short, the MOE provision as applied here does not create a new program and falls comfortably within Congress's express reservation of power to "alter" or "amend" the terms of the Medicaid statute in its coverage of previously covered groups.
Maine says that it can stop providing Medicaid to 18 to 20 years old even through it had done so the past, for such coverage was NOT required prior to the adoption of the ACA:
Maine DHHS contends that, regardless of its earlier choice to provide coverage for low-income 19- and 20-year olds, Congress had not previously mandated this coverage, so the now-mandated MOE coverage is "new." It argues that "Congress cannot threaten to withdraw all Medicaid funds from a State for failing or refusing to cover categories of adults for whom Medicaid has never previously mandated coverage," regardless of the fact the state had chosen to provide such coverage. In fact, Congress can do so and it has done so, on numerous occasions. Moreover, the NFIB plurality expressly said Congress is allowed to do so, so long as the change effected by the expansion is a shift in degree rather than a shift in kind.
The court then points out that Maine is trying to say that it could discontinued what Maine had been doing and any requirement that Congress says Maine can NOT discontinued what Maine had been doing is unconstitutional. The Court then REJECTS that argument:
Maine DHHS's argument that the MOE provision is indistinguishable from the Medicaid expansion considered in NFIB is, as explained, unpersuasive. As it affects Maine, the MOE provision requires Maine to do no more than continue to cover low-income individuals aged 18 to 20 for a period of nine years, and in exchange Maine will receive the classic funding. By contrast, the new Medicaid program expansion would have required Maine to cover all low-income individuals indefinitely. NFIB, 132 -27-S. Ct. at 2606. Those changes are not the same nor even analogous
The court goes on a destroys the other arguments of Maine as to being able to cut out what it had previously agreed to. Good opinion, including a comment that the Supreme Court Decision is split decision with no majority opinion, thus to be narrowly construed.
Given that the previous case involving ACA did NOT have a majority opinion issued, I suspect the US Supreme Court will avoid this case. Ideally the Court likes cases it can decided 9-0, and that is most of its cases (and no one reports on them, for they tend to be legal interpretation of the law). Split decision are disfavored and when such decision looks like it will happen, unless something other reason shows up, the US Supreme Court will avoid the case.
= new reply since forum marked as read
?width=460&height=276
