Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.
Americas+1 212 318 2000
EMEA+44 20 7330 7500
Asia Pacific+65 6212 1000
Connecting decision makers to a dynamic network of information, people and ideas, Bloomberg quickly and accurately delivers business and financial information, news and insight around the world.
Americas+1 212 318 2000
EMEA+44 20 7330 7500
Asia Pacific+65 6212 1000
By Ganny Belloni
A federal court temporarily blocked in 19 states a Biden administration policy to extend federally subsidized health insurance to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the US as children.
In an order granting a motion for preliminary injunction and stay released on Monday, Judge Daniel M. Traynor of the US District Court for the District of North Dakota wrote that the US Department of Health and Human Services likely “acted in excess of statutory authority” when it issued a final rule extending subsidized Affordable Care Act coverage to those eligible under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
The HHS final rule modified the definition of who is considered “lawfully present” under the ACA, allowing DACA recipients access to government-subsidized health insurance for the first time. The rule would make an estimated 147,000 more people eligible to receive benefits.
“The authority granted to CMS by the ACA is to ascertain whether an individual meets the requirements for lawful status. It by no means allows the agency to circumvent congressional authority and redefine the term ‘lawfully present,’ Judge Traynor wrote.
“As it currently stands, the ACA does not allow federal healthcare subsidies or coverage for aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States,” he added.
The request for the temporary injunction was brought by a collection of 19 states including Kansas, North Dakota, Florida, and Texas. The CMS had previously issued a motion to dismiss the suit, arguing that North Dakota lacked standing and the case should be dismissed or transferred to another jurisdiction.
Traynor disagreed, arguing that although North Dakota does “not suffer a direct injury from the Final Rule” the “powerful incentive of health care will encourage aliens who may otherwise vacate the Plaintiff States to remain.”
This in turn would create “a substantial risk North Dakota will suffer monetary harm via issuing licenses and providing education.”
Monday’s decision blocks HHS from enforcing the rule against the 19 states.
The case is Kansas v. Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Services, D.N.D., No. 1:24-cv-00150, Order 12/9/24.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story:
AI-powered legal analytics, workflow tools and premium legal & business news.
Log in to keep reading or access research tools.
