Here's the Video Exposing What NYU's Pro-Hamas Students Really Think
Will Jewish Voters Stop Voting For The Democrats Who Want To Kill Them?
Is Biden Serious With His Victory Lap on 'National Security'?
Someone Has to Be the Adult in the Room: Clear the Quad and...
Our Gallows Hill — The Latest Trump Witch Trial
Adding to the Title IX Law
‘Hush Money’ Case Against Trump Is Bad On The Law and On the...
Stop the 'Emergency Spending' Charade Already
Joe Biden’s Hitler Problem
Universities of America You Are Directly Responsible for the Rise of Jew Hatred...
The 'Belongers', Part II
Banning TikTok a Blow to Free Speech
Human Dreck
Border Crisis Solution - Forget Biden and Speaker Johnson
NPR Whistleblower Highlights Everything Wrong With Journalism Today
Tipsheet

Federal Judge Rejects Sen. Johnson's Obamacare Lawsuit

A federal judge dismissed Sen. Johnson’s (R-Wis.) Obamacare lawsuit Monday on the grounds that the senator had no legal standing in the case. Johnson filed the suit in January, claiming that the Office of Personnel Management took illegal and bias actions when it allowed congressional members and their staff to continue receiving federal health care subsidies while on the Obamacare health exchanges.

Advertisement

The OPM’s regulation violated Obamacare and also trounced on the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, according to Johnson’s complaint.

“The ACA provides that as of January 1, 2014, the only health insurance plans that Members of Congress and their staffs can be offered by the federal government are health insurance plans “created under [the ACA]” or “offered through an Exchange” established under the ACA…..

[T]he OPM Rule does not treat Members of Congress and their staffs like the Members’ constituents. Instead, it puts them in a better position by providing them with a continuing tax-free subsidy from the federal government to pay a percentage of the premiums for health insurance purchased through an ACA Exchange….”

Judge William Griesbach said the challenge could not be accepted in a court of law due to Johnson’s lack of cognizable injury, or legal standing, in the case:

Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to decide every legal question that may arise. Instead, federal courts may resolve questions only when they are presented in justiciable “Cases” or “Controversies.” U.S. CONST. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. “As used in the Constitution, those words do not include every sort of dispute, but only those ‘historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.’"
Advertisement

If every judge followed the constraints of the Constitution so affably, the nation might be in a much better position than it is now. Johnson, however, was disappointed that a "legal technicality" stopped the judge from addressing important constitutional issues.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement