March 26, 2019

March 25, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

What's Next After the Texas vs. Azar Ruling?

On Friday, December 14th, Judge Reed O’Connor, a Texas Federal District Court Judge, ruled on the case Texas vs. Azar. As background, Texas vs. Azar was filed by 20 Republican state attorneys general and governors. The plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and argue that since the individual mandate has been repealed, or more technically zeroed out, the rest of the ACA must be struck down. They argue that the individual mandate cannot be severed from the ACA given its key structural role in the law. The Department of Justice agreed with some, but not all parts, of this argument, and sixteen states and DC are defending the ACA.

Judge O’Connor ruled that not only are all the parts of the ACA that are directly connected with Title I of the ACA unconstitutional, but the entire ACA is unconstitutional.

The remarkable sweep of the ruling puts the ACA back on the table in a BIG way.  The sense on the Hill was that staff was preparing for a ruling in favor of Texas and that only Title I of the ACA would be struck down.  Title I is the set of provisions that create the private market coverage system. However, the ruling declares the ENTIRE law unconstitutional. This changes the calculation for health care on the Hill in much of 2019.

The playbook for re-litigating Title I in Congress was pretty straightforward. The Democratic House would vote to join the appeal of the lawsuit, they would have hearings and a floor resolution on pre-existing conditions, then move on to drug pricing.  But now, Democrats have all 10 titles of the law to re-litigate.  Let's talk about a few provisions that were declared unconstitutional Friday.

  • The entire Medicaid expansion, most importantly the additional FMAP.

  • ACOs

  • All the Medicare payment provisions


  • The Physician Payment Sunshine Act

  • The Prevention Fund

  • The process that created biosimilars at FDA

  • All the revenue measures

It is important to note that we are a long way from this decision having a real world impact. There will be an appeal to the 5th Circuit and a trip to the Supreme Court seems more likely now than if the decision had ruled in favor of Azar. This is a long process that will likely take us into 2020 for a final decision.

In the immediate future, we can expect that Democrats in the House will now have hearings and hold show votes on any provision of the entire act.  The question remains, can the Republican Senate sit and watch and act as though nothing is happening in the House?  

Now let's be clear: this is all theater as the court process plays out.  But it is time consuming theater.  What yesterday's ruling does is alter timelines for the must pass bills for next year.  It expands the amount of time that staffers critical to must pass bills have to spend on issues unrelated to those must pass bills. It pushes other subjects of interest off of calendars. That's the real world impact of the decision.

The playbook was at the ready for Title I to be declared unconstitutional. Maybe Democrats will stick to the playbook. But if Democrats think health care is a wedge issue and that the gap between the parties can be grown, they were just handed a significant expansion of the playing field. It will be surprising if Democrats do not take advantage of it.

©1994-2019 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.


About this Author

Rodney L. Whitlock, Mintz Levin, ML Startegies, Health Policy Advisor, Washington DC
ML Strategies - Vice President

Rodney is a veteran health care policy professional with more than 20 years of experience working with the US Congress, where he served as health policy advisor and as Acting Health Policy Director for Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and, earlier, on the staff of former US Representative Charlie Norwood of Georgia.

During his years with Representative Norwood, Rodney managed the Patients’ Bill of Rights, which passed the House in 1999 and 2001. In February 2005, Rodney left the office of Congressman Norwood to join the Finance...

Katie Weider, Mintz Levin Law Firm, New York, Health Care Policy Director
Director of Health Policy

Katie provides advice and guidance on issues relating to Medicaid, Medicare, and the Marketplace.

Prior to joining ML Strategies, Katie was a senior analyst with the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission (MACPAC), a nonpartisan agency that provides Congress, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and states with analysis and recommendations on issues affecting Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). There Katie researched, developed, and prepared Medicaid policy recommendations; conducted legislative, data, and policy analyses related to a host of Medicaid and Medicare issues; and provided policy analyses and technical assistance for Congressional staff on draft bills and policy questions, among many other duties.


In her work at ML Strategies Katie helps navigate complex legislative, regulatory, and executive actions relating to Medicaid, Medicare, and the Marketplace. She helps clients determine the effects of state and federal action on client business models and helps clients develop comprehensive strategies. 


While earning her master’s degree in public health, Katie worked at the George Washington University leading the evaluation of HRSA’s Teaching Health Centers Graduate Medical Education program and also worked in the office of Senator Charles Grassley.