In a significant legal challenge, a coalition of 15 states, led by Kansas, has filed a lawsuit against the Biden-Harris administration, seeking to block the extension of Affordable Care Act (ACA) benefits to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients and other noncitizens. The lawsuit, spearheaded by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota Western Division. The plaintiffs argue that the Biden administration’s recent rule change violates federal law by providing taxpayer-funded health care benefits to individuals who are not legally present in the United States.
At the heart of the lawsuit is a new rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which redefines the term “lawfully present” to include DACA recipients, commonly known as “Dreamers.” This redefinition enables DACA recipients to access ACA coverage, including premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions, which were previously reserved for U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. The coalition of states contends that this rule change oversteps the bounds of federal law and the ACA, which specifically limits eligibility to U.S. citizens and lawfully present individuals.
The lawsuit also claims that the CMS rule violates the Administrative Procedures Act, a federal law that governs how regulations are implemented and prohibits unauthorized expansions of benefits to individuals who do not meet the legal criteria. By expanding ACA coverage to DACA recipients, the plaintiffs argue that the federal government is imposing an unlawful financial burden on American taxpayers.
In addition to Kansas, the attorneys general from 14 other states, including North Dakota, have joined the lawsuit, reflecting widespread opposition to the Biden administration’s policy. The case could have far-reaching implications for the future of the ACA and immigration policy, as it raises fundamental questions about the extent of executive authority and the role of the federal government in providing health care to undocumented immigrants.
As the legal battle unfolds, the outcome of this case could set a precedent for how federal programs are applied to noncitizens and shape the ongoing debate over immigration and health care reform in the United States.
