_fw.png)
"...administrative rule promulgated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), which expands...to include aliens granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)."
- NH Muckraker
- 5 minutes ago
- 2 min read
The complaint filed in August of 2024 challenges a rule by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) that redefines “lawfully present” to include DACA recipients for Affordable Care Act (ACA) eligibility purposes. The plaintiffs—18 states—claim this rule is unlawful, procedurally improper, and harmful to their interests.
"In New Hampshire, it is estimated that there are approximately 14,000 to 19,000 illegal aliens residing in the State, including their children, costing taxpayers between approximately $79 million and $107 million per year."
KEY ARGUMENTS
1. Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
Exceeds Statutory Authority: Plaintiffs argue that CMS lacks authority under the ACA or immigration statutes to define DACA recipients as “lawfully present” for purposes of health coverage eligibility.
Arbitrary and Capricious: The rule allegedly fails to adequately consider important issues, such as the cost to states, the distinction between lawful presence and lawful status, and prior agency positions.
Procedural Defect: Even though this rule was subject to notice and comment, plaintiffs may argue it still lacked meaningful consideration of opposition or violated APA procedural norms.
2. Conflict with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)
Plaintiffs assert that DACA recipients do not have lawful immigration status under the INA, and CMS cannot override or reinterpret that statutory framework through regulation.
3. Constitutional Claims (Separation of Powers)
The complaint argues that the Executive Branch (through CMS) was usurping congressional authority by attempting to extend federal benefits to a group Congress has not chosen to recognize as eligible.
4. Standing and Injury
The states argue they are harmed because the rule imposes costs by increasing the number of individuals eligible for federally subsidized insurance, which can indirectly burden state budgets and healthcare systems.
Requested Relief
Declaratory Judgment: That the rule is unlawful.
Vacatur: Ask the court to set aside the rule entirely under the APA.
Injunctive Relief: Prevent CMS from implementing or enforcing the rule.
In Ending.
Federalism: The complaint stresses the burden placed on states by federal action without proper authority or consultation.
Precedent Reliance: The plaintiffs cite past Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Texas v. United States, DAPA case) rejecting similar executive actions expanding immigration-related benefits.
