A federal judge has dismissed the lawsuit filed by the state of Maryland that sought to enforce the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Maryland filed the lawsuit in September 2018 to establish that the ACA was constitutional after Congress reduced the payment for violating the minimum coverage requirement to zero. See OTW’s coverage of the case here: “Maryland Sues to Head Off Texas ACA Challenge.”
Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the case. She noted that the case was affected by the recent Northern District of Texas declaration (Judge Reed O’Connor) that the individual mandate of the ACA was unconstitutional and the remaining provision of the ACA inseverable and invalid. See OTW’s prior coverage of that case here: “Texas Judge Rules ACA Unconstitutional” and “Texas Lawsuit Challenges ACA.”
In dismissing Maryland’s suit, Judge Hollander wrote, “Maryland claims to have suffered an injury because of the ‘substantial risk’ of defendants’ failure to enforce the ACA…In support of its claim of an imminent decision by the Administration not to enforce the ACA, Maryland points to various statements made by the President, indicating his contempt for the Act.”
Judge Hollander continued, “The President’s profound disdain for the ACA cannot be seriously disputed. But the State’s allegations do not create a plausible inference of a substantial or certainly impending risk that the Trump Administration will cease enforcement of part or all of the ACA. Neither the president’s zealous attempts to repeal the statute, nor his derisive comments about it, support an inference that he will fail to enforce the law.”
Judge Hollander dismissed Maryland’s claims, calling them, “speculative and thus deficient.” She noted that while the state’s claim was not currently ripe for review, Maryland was free to revive the litigation when it had suffered an actual injury.
