The lawsuit alleges that the new rule defies existing federal laws defining eligibility for public benefits.
Fifteen states have filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), challenging a new rule that extends health coverage benefits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to individuals granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).
Filed in the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota on Aug. 8, the lawsuit alleges that the new rule defies existing federal laws defining eligibility for public benefits.
The states, represented by their attorneys general, argue that the rule published by CMS in May unlawfully expands the definition of “lawfully present” to include DACA recipients, thus making them eligible for federally subsidized health insurance coverage.
“Illegal aliens shouldn’t get a free pass into our country,” Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who is leading the coalition of states, said in a statement. “They shouldn’t receive taxpayer benefits when they arrive, and the Biden–Harris administration shouldn’t get a free pass to violate federal law.”
The plaintiffs contend that the CMS rule conflicts with the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, which restricts federal public benefits to certain categories of “qualified aliens.”
According to court documents, “aliens who have been granted deferred action under DACA are not included in the definition of such qualified aliens.”
The plaintiffs argue that CMS’s inclusion of DACA recipients in the “lawfully present” category contradicts statutory definitions for public benefits eligibility.
The complaint states that the ACA mandates that only U.S. citizens, nationals, or aliens “lawfully present” are eligible to enroll in a qualified health plan through a subsidized exchange.
The plaintiffs assert that “DACA recipients are, by definition, unlawfully present in the United States,” and therefore should not be eligible for these benefits. They claim that CMS’s decision is “contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”
Furthermore, the plaintiffs argue that the rule places undue financial and administrative burdens on the states, particularly those with state-run ACA exchanges.
