Dive Brief:
- A new appeal against the Affordable Care Act argues the health law is unconstitutional because it raises revenue through a variety of taxes, and the Constitution’s Origination Clause requires bills for raising revenue to originate in the House rather than the Senate.
- The appeal was filed Monday by the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of small-business owner Matt Sissel.
- Some legal experts suggest it's unlikely the justices will hear Sissel v. HHS.
Dive Insight:
Whether or not the case makes headway, it makes a statement opposition will continue long-term against the ACA despite the Supreme Court having ruled for the law this summer in King v. Burwell.
The case rests on the intent of the law as well as its origin.
A panel of the federal appeals court said that although the ACA includes tax-raising provisions, its primary purpose was not to raise revenue but to expand health coverage, the Washington Times reports. However, when the full appeals court considered the case, the Republican-appointed judges said it should qualify as revenue-producing.
As for whether it originated in the House: Officials say it technically did, but began as an unrelated measure to help veterans buy homes. After that bill passed the House, it was the Senate that gutted it and transformed it into the ACA.