Minneapolis Hilton Nixing ICE Agent Reservations Is Now Facing the Consequences
California's Government Better Get Ready for the Minnesota Treatment
Trump Just Gave Republicans a Dire Warning About the Midterms
Rand Paul Said This Republican Was Behind the Operation to Topple Venezuelan President
AAG Harmeet Dhillon Puts the Mamdani Administration on Notice Over Marxist Housing Policie...
In Mamdani's New York, the 'Warmth of Collectivism' Looks a Lot Like Anti-White...
A Deep Dive Into Mamdani's Housing Advisor Cea Weaver Shows Just How Dangerous...
North Carolina Let Another Career Criminal Roam Free, and Now a Teacher Is...
Why Hasn't Trump Repealed Biden's $50 Billion Backdoor Business Tax Increase?
Tucker Carlson Once Claimed the U.S. Would Kill Maduro to Push Gay Marriage,...
Dan Bongino Declares War on 'Grifters and Bums' as He Plans to Return...
Rep. Jasmine Crockett Says 'F**k You' to Supreme Court Over Texas Redistricting
Stephen Miller Gives Epic Response When Jake Tapper Starts Freaking Out Over Venezuela
The Long Awaited Trial for Ashli Babbitt, That Never Came
Iran's Solution to the Mass Protests Is a $7 Stimulus Package
Tipsheet

Legal Case for Individual Mandate Delay Stronger Than Employer Delay

More than three weeks after President Obama launched HealthCare.gov, not only has it become abundantly clear that the site is a complete non-functioning catastrophe, but it is also becoming more likely that the site will not be fixed for some time.

Advertisement

Due to this failure, as Guy Benson noted yesterday, the White House is now leaving open the possibility that Obama will delay enforcing the individual mandate, probably by administrative fiat. But would such a move be legal?

If done right, yes, Obama could probably delay the indidivual mandate unilateraly. Nicholas Bagley, an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan Law School, and Austin Frakt, a health economist with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, explain:

The secretary is explicitly empowered in yet another provision of the law to “establish a program” for determining “whether to grant a certification” for a hardship exemption. That gives Sebelius latitude to craft sensible certification rules for the exchanges.

As things stand, the rules the secretary has put in place provide for an individualized application process. But nothing in the law prevents her from tweaking that approach. If necessary, she could draft a new rule instructing nonfunctional exchanges -- including the federally operated ones -- to issue blanket certifications on behalf of all of the uninsured in their states. With those blanket certifications, the penalty would be waived -- and all without congressional action.

Advertisement

Considering how controversial the individual mandate always was (remember, Obama opposed it in the 2008 Democratic primary), it is not surprising that Democrats put an easy executive out on the mandate into the law.

The same is not true of the employer mandate which recieved far less attention in Obamacare's passage. Nothing in Obamacare gives HHS any authority to delay the employer mandate, which Obama did anyway on July 5th of this year.

Instead, Obama was forced to use an obscure passage of the U.S. tax code to justify his employer mandate.

If both of Obama's mandate delays are challenged in court, the employer mandate delay would be on much shakier legal ground.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos