Court Temporarily Blocks Health Coverage for DACA Recipients in 19 States
A federal judge has temporarily blocked young adult immigrants known as “Dreamers” in 19 U.S. states from accessing health insurance through the Affordable Care Act’s public marketplace. The ruling represents a setback for the Biden administration, which had sought to expand health coverage for immigrants brought to the country illegally as children.
Judge Daniel Traynor of the U.S. District Court in North Dakota issued the order from Bismarck on Monday. His decision came in a lawsuit filed by Republican attorneys general in 19 states who argued that the Biden administration’s rule would incentivize illegal immigration by providing access to public subsidies available under the ACA.
The ruling, which remains in effect until the case goes to trial, focuses on the potential for financial strain on states. “Dreamers” remain a low priority depotation. However, as Traynor highlighted, granting access to subsidized health care could “create a substantial risk that states will suffer monetary harm.”
Legal Battles Over DACA and Health Care Access
The Biden administration’s rule, implemented earlier this year, aimed to allow an estimated 147,000 immigrants known as “Dreamers,” to enroll for coverage. It sparked immediate legal challenges from Republican-led states.
These states argued that both the Affordable Care Act and a 1996 law prohibit U.S. government benefits from going to immigrants living in the country illegally. They emphasized concerns about the financial impact of the rule on their state budgets.
The Biden administration had argued for the federal government’s right to determine who qualifies for legal residency.
Traynor did acknowledge federal law gives the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) authority to determine legal status. However, wrote that it “by no means allows the agency to circumvent congruesional authority and redefine the term ‘lawfully present.’”
CMS, in a statement, said it’s reviewing the lawsuit but refrained from commenting on ongoing litigation.
## Emotions Run High Over Access to Health Care
The decision was met with disappointment by advocates for immigrants.
Nicholas Espíritu, the deputy legal director of the National Immigration Law Center, called the ruling both “disappointing and wrong on the law.” He vowed his organization would continue fighting for health care access for “Dreamers,” many of whom, ESPIRITU said, have waited over a decade for health plan options through the ACA.
Despite the setback, opponents of the Biden administration’s rule celebrated the ruling as a victory for the rule of law.
Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach argued that the Biden administration was overstepping its bounds, trying to redefine the meaning of legal presence through “executive fiat” and labeling it “Alice in Wonderland stuff.”
Represented in the case with
Federalism and Immigration Policy
Kansas and North Dakota are the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, adding Alabama Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia to the newly largerSama
”
The American taxpayer, through Congress, determines how we respond to Immigrants.
It doesn’t always come across as friendly and kind and cuddly, it speaks to the access to our healthcare system, the cost and the burden on the American taxpayer,”
The case is expected to continue its journey through the judicial system, with implications for.
