A federal judge has thrown a wrench into the Biden administration’s plans by ruling against ACA coverage for Dreamers, adding another chapter to the ongoing debate about healthcare and immigration.
At a Glance
- Federal judge blocks ACA coverage for Dreamers in 19 states.
- Judge Traynor claims HHS exceeded its authority.
- The ruling affects around 147,000 DACA recipients.
- States involved include Kansas, North Dakota, Florida, and Texas.
Federal Court’s Judgment
Judge Daniel M. Traynor of the US District Court for North Dakota issued an order blocking the Biden administration’s rule that sought to extend Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, often referred to as Dreamers. Traynor stated the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) likely acted beyond its statutory authority, remarking, “The authority granted to CMS by the ACA is to ascertain whether an individual meets the requirements for lawful status.”
The case, titled Kansas v. Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Services, involves 19 states challenging the rule on grounds of state standing. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) attempted to dismiss the suit, asserting North Dakota lacked standing. Judge Traynor disagreed and granted a stay that affects approximately 147,000 undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as minors.
A federal judge in North Dakota has rejected a Biden administration policy to allow immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children — known as "Dreamers" — to enroll for healthcare through the Affordable Care Act, known as "Obamacare." https://t.co/zFQyumki04
— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) December 10, 2024
Legal Dispute and Legislative Intent
A Kansas Attorney General praised the ruling, stating it supports legislative intent that healthcare subsidies not extend to individuals unlawfully present in the U.S. This view echoes concerns among conservatives about broadening access to federal programs for undocumented immigrants. Traynor underscored that the ACA, as it stands, does not allow for federal healthcare subsidies or coverage for those unlawfully present.
“This decision is a big win for the rule of law. Congress never intended that illegal aliens should receive Obamacare benefits.” – Kris Kobach
In contrast, HHS sought to redefine “lawfully present,” increasing eligibility for subsidized insurance. The judge’s verdict halts this redefinition in participating states. Claims arise that CMS attempted to reframe congressional authority, which they deny. A representative from CMS noted, “The agency is reviewing the court’s decision; however, the agency does not comment on litigation.”
Implications and Future Considerations
Dreamers now face renewed uncertainty in their pursuit of healthcare coverage. The court’s ruling magnifies ongoing tensions within state and federal regulations, illustrating the complex relationship involving immigration policy and healthcare access. Stakeholders on both sides prepare for likely appeals and further legal scrutiny.
As legal challenges continue, the Biden administration may reevaluate its strategy to integrate immigrant populations within national healthcare frameworks. The intersection of healthcare and immigration law will likely remain contentious, inviting further judicial review and public discourse.
Sources:
- Court Blocks Biden’s Expansion of Obamacare for DACA Recipients
- Federal court blocks ACA coverage for Dreamers
- Federal Judge Blocks Obamacare for Dreamers
