COVID-19 UPDATE: The Boyd Law Group, PLLC remains open remotely to serve our clients and community and assist them with their labor and employment law needs. We can be reached through all our usual contact numbers and/or the contact form on this site. Consultations/meetings can be conducted virtually through multiple teleconferencing and videoconferencing resources. See our most recent blog posts for updates about COVID-19 and your rights as employers and employees in the workplace.

ACA and a New Supreme Court Justice: It is Debatable How Much the Change Really Matters

The confirmation of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to the United States Supreme Court, and the process that lead up to it set off a firestorm of controversies; Democrats accusing Republicans of rushing through a candidate right before an election, and Republicans accusing Democrats of politicizing the process of the confirmation for political gain.  Beyond the wrangling, however, an earnest discussion is to be had on fate of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and whether Justice Barrett and of the Court upon which she sits will strike down this landmark legislation.  As discussed below, Justice Barrett’s seat on the Court may not make much of a difference.  Rather, the Court and further legislation are likely to produce additional uncertainty for the ACA and healthcare coverage generally in the near and even intermediate term.

The ACA has, without a doubt, been one of the most highly debated and contentious laws since it was enacted through a parliamentary procedural mechanism and simple majority vote in 2010.  It was designed to extend healthcare coverage to uninsured Americans, partly through premium subsidies and expansion of Medicaid coverage.  In 2012, the law faced its most consequential challenge, but at that time the Supreme Court held that the “individual mandate” penalty imposed by law for not obtaining coverage — a key element to funding the law — was a lawful tax within Congress’s powers rather than an overextension of Congress’ Commerce Clause authorities.  At that time, then Law Professor Barrett, expressed  opposition to this ruling, arguing that Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion was incorrect and that the penalty provision of the ACA is unconstitutional.  Notwithstanding this fact, however, Justice Barrett stated in her confirmation hearings that she was not hostile to the ACA, just the Constitutional interpretation that upheld its passage.  In the confirmation hearings, Democrat Senators shared stories of Americans who gained coverage under the ACA and stood to lose coverage if the Court struck it down.  The COVID-19 Pandemic was also leveraged to add further drama to these stories, but these demonstrations were more political theatre than legal arguments or interpretations.

Of greater legal relevance is the fact that the ACA faces a new challenge out of the United States Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, which arose after Congress eventually eliminated the individual mandate portion of the ACA.  In that case, the Fifth Circuit held, among other things, that the individual mandate was in fact an unconstitutional overreach of Congress’ Commerce Clause powers.  This challenge has once again elevated examination of these issues to the Supreme Court.  The issue, of course, is whether Justice Barrett’s confirmation to the Court will make a difference.  She could — based on her past positions and arguments — agree with the conservative majority and strike down the ACA (although the current argument before the Court differs slightly than in the 2012 challenge).  Justice Barrett (or other court members) might, however, choose to defer to earlier precedent upholding the ACA or examine this issue in a distinctly new way.

To be frank, viewed through BLG’s employment law lens, the ACA has only had a modest impact thus far.  It has enabled some workers to obtain healthcare coverage more easily outside of their employment, enabling them to change jobs or work in non-traditional forms of employment — like freelancing or consulting — while still being able to obtain healthcare coverage.  On the other hand, premiums for many who already had employment-based coverage have increased substantially which has decreased their earnings.  Negotiating for continued health care in severance packages (especially in the current COVID environment) is often a key priority for clients.  In such negotiations, however,  extended health coverage, when weighed against receiving extended severance pay, only benefits an employee that does not believe she/he will not obtain a new job with health care coverage in the short term.  It is, thus, a relatively small bargaining chip.

It is also unclear as to whether the fate of the ACA is likely to have a profound impact on healthcare for the years to come.  Ending the ACA could either leave many healthcare coverage questions in limbo or it could galvanize certain forces pressing for more government involvement to take action in this area.  Most importantly, the inclusion of this new Supreme Court Justice is merely one element of many that will impact the ultimate fate of the ACA and health care in the United States.  Instead of looking for the Judicial Branch to decide these policy laden issues, the real focus should be on elected officials working across the aisle in Congress towards a solution that will simply provide for better health coverage for all Americans who need it.

Attorneys at The Boyd Law Group are monitoring these and other changes to the legal landscape and stand ready to assist our employee and employer clients in navigating these developing impacts in the employment law context to help “take the worry out of your work.”

Featured In
Connecticut Law Tribune
abc News
Forbes
Fox 5
Greenwich Time
New York Law Journal
New York Post
Stamford Advocate
New York Times
The Village Voice
U.S.News
Contact Information