Court Ruling on Dreamers’ ACA Coverage: Impact on Policy Unfolds

A federal court in North Dakota has temporarily blocked the Biden administration’s attempt to extend Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children, commonly known as “Dreamers.”

At a Glance

North Dakota federal court halts ACA coverage for DACA recipients in 19 states.
Judge rules HHS likely exceeded its authority in redefining “lawfully present.”
Decision affects approximately 147,000 potential beneficiaries.
Ruling highlights ongoing tensions in U.S. immigration and healthcare policies.

Court Blocks Biden’s ACA Expansion for DACA Recipients

In a significant setback for the Biden administration’s immigration and healthcare policies, a federal court in North Dakota has temporarily blocked the extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) coverage to recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Daniel M. Traynor, prevents the implementation of a final rule by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that sought to redefine “lawfully present” under the ACA, potentially making 147,000 more individuals eligible for subsidized health insurance.

Judge Traynor’s decision stems from a lawsuit filed by 19 states, including Kansas, North Dakota, Florida, and Texas. The court found that HHS likely exceeded its statutory authority in attempting to expand ACA coverage to DACA recipients. This ruling underscores the complex legal landscape surrounding immigration and healthcare policies in the United States.

A federal judge in North Dakota has rejected a Biden administration policy to allow immigrants who came to the U.S. illegally as children — known as "Dreamers" — to enroll for healthcare through the Affordable Care Act, known as "Obamacare." https://t.co/zFQyumki04

— NEWSMAX (@NEWSMAX) December 10, 2024

Legal Reasoning Behind the Ruling

Central to Judge Traynor’s decision is the interpretation of the term “lawfully present” under the ACA. The court argued that the Act does not permit federal healthcare subsidies for individuals unlawfully present in the U.S. Judge Traynor emphasized the limits of administrative authority in redefining statutory terms.

“The authority granted to CMS by the ACA is to ascertain whether an individual meets the requirements for lawful status. It by no means allows the agency to circumvent congressional authority and redefine the term ‘lawfully present,'” Judge Traynor stated in his ruling.

This interpretation challenges the Biden administration’s efforts to expand healthcare access for undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children. The ruling effectively prevents HHS from enforcing the rule in the 19 states involved in the lawsuit, marking a significant legal obstacle for the administration’s immigration and healthcare agenda.

Implications for DACA Recipients and Healthcare Policy

The court’s decision has far-reaching implications for DACA recipients and broader healthcare policy. Prior to this ruling, DACA recipients were considered not “lawfully present” under healthcare law, affecting their eligibility for coverage. The Biden administration’s rule, announced in May, aimed to change this status, allowing DACA recipients to enroll in ACA health plans and receive financial assistance.

“As it currently stands, the ACA does not allow federal healthcare subsidies or coverage for aliens who are unlawfully present in the United States,” Judge Traynor noted in his decision.

This ruling not only impacts the immediate healthcare options for DACA recipients but also highlights the ongoing debate surrounding the rights and benefits afforded to undocumented immigrants in the United States. It raises questions about the balance between executive action and legislative authority in shaping immigration and healthcare policies.

Reactions and Next Steps

The court’s decision has elicited strong reactions from various stakeholders. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, representing one of the plaintiff states, praised the ruling as a victory for the rule of law. “This decision is a big win for the rule of law. Congress never intended that illegal aliens should receive Obamacare benefits. Indeed, two laws prohibit them from receiving such benefits. The Biden administration tried to break those laws. But we fought back and defeated the Biden Justice Department,” Kobach stated.

On the other hand, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has indicated that it is reviewing the court’s decision but refrained from commenting on the ongoing litigation. The Department of Justice has not yet provided a public response to the ruling.

As the case, titled Kansas v. Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Services, D.N.D., No. 1:24-cv-00150, moves forward, it is likely to remain a focal point in the broader national debate on immigration reform and healthcare access. The outcome of this legal battle will have significant implications for DACA recipients’ access to healthcare and may influence future policy decisions at the intersection of immigration and health policy.