The lawsuit alleges that the new rule defies existing federal laws defining eligibility for public benefits.
Filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota on Aug. 8, the lawsuit alleges that the new rule defies existing federal laws defining eligibility for public benefits.
The states, represented by their attorneys general, argue that the rule published by CMS in May unlawfully expands the definition of “lawfully present” to include DACA recipients, thus making them eligible for federally subsidized health insurance coverage.
The plaintiffs contend that the CMS rule conflicts with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, which restricts federal public benefits to certain categories of “qualified aliens.”
According to court documents, “aliens who have been granted deferred action under DACA are not included in the definition of such qualified aliens.”
Related Stories
The plaintiffs argue that CMS’s inclusion of DACA recipients in the “lawfully present” category contradicts statutory definitions for public benefits eligibility.
The complaint states that the ACA mandates that only U.S. citizens, nationals, or aliens “lawfully present” are eligible to enroll in a qualified health plan through a subsidized exchange.
The plaintiffs assert that “DACA recipients are, by definition, unlawfully present in the United States,” and therefore should not be eligible for these benefits. They claim that CMS’s decision is “contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”
Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that the rule places undue financial and administrative burdens on the states, particularly those with state-run ACA exchanges.
They claim that the expansion of coverage incentivizes unlawfully present individuals to remain in the United States, thereby increasing fiscal burdens on state resources.
CMS justified the rule, stating it aligns with the “broad aims of the ACA to increase access to health coverage.”
CMS also cited the economic importance of DACA recipients and their disproportionately high percentage of uninsured individuals.
The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, requesting the court to vacate the CMS rule and prevent its implementation. The states ask for the rule to be postponed pending judicial review and for the defendants to be enjoined from implementing it.
A CMS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email that the agency does not comment on pending litigation.
Original News Source Link – Epoch Times
Running For Office? Conservative Campaign Consulting – Election Day Strategies!