The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
DACA and ACA Come Full Circle
The Biden Administration "reconsiders" Obama Administration policy from 2012, expands ACA coverage to DACA recipients.
Flash back to September 2009. President Obama was advocating for his health care reform during a joint session of Congress. He sought to assure the American people that the Affordable Care Act would not provide coverage for illegal immigrants.
Obama: There are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.
Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina famously yelled out, "You lie."
Obama responded, "It's not true." The Center for American Progress offered a helpful fact-check, finding that "Every proposal on the table explicitly disqualifies illegal immigrants from receiving federal benefits."
President Obama also said that the ACA did not raise taxes.
Now flash forward to June 2012. In the span of two weeks, the Obama administration announced DACA and Chief Justice Roberts upheld the Affordable Care Act. That was a pretty impressive thirteen day run! So much for that no-tax promise. But, in keeping with his other promise, in August 2012, the Obama administration expressly excluded DACA recipients from the ACA, and CMS definition of "lawfully present." Though there were several challenges to DACA, none gained much steam.
Two years later, in November 2014, the Obama Administration announced DAPA. That executive action faced a serious legal challenge by the Texas Attorney General, and we saw one of the first important forum-shopped nationwide injunctions. Throughout the litigation, the Obama administration insisted that DAPA, and DACA, did not actually confer benefits on recipients. Rather, it was merely an exercise of "prosecutorial discretion." (Stop me if you've heard this before). Sure, DAPA, and DACA, would have granted "lawful presence" to these aliens, and thus allowed them to work. But that was all because of regulations from the Reagan administration. (Stop me if you've heard this before.) Lawyers for the executive branch insisted that DAPA, and DACA recipients would not be eligible for health insurance benefits under the Affordable Care Act. (Stop me if you've heard this before.)
Fast forward to the present. The Biden Administration has "reconsidered" the Obama policy from August 2012, and expanded ACA coverage to DACA recipients:
In previously excluding DACA recipients from the definition of "lawfully present," we had posited that other definitions of lawful presence should not be used as a touchstone for eligibility if the program in question was not established with the explicit objective of expanding access to health insurance affordability programs. However, given the broad aims of the ACA to increase access to health coverage, we now assess that this rationale for excluding certain noncitizen groups from such coverage was not mandated by the ACA, and it failed to best effectuate congressional intent in the ACA. Additionally, HHS previously reasoned that considering DACA recipients eligible for insurance affordability programs was inconsistent with the relief that the DACA policy afforded. However, on further review and consideration, it is clear that the DACA policy is intended to provide recipients with a degree of stability and assurance that would allow them to obtain education and lawful employment, including because recipients remain lower priorities for removal. Extending eligibility to these individuals is consistent with those goals. There also was no statutory mandate to distinguish between recipients of deferred action under the DACA policy and other deferred action recipients.
Now, DACA recipients will receive subsidies on an exchange established by the state (which also includes the federal exchange, thank you again John Roberts). You can read the 145-page rule. But none of it will matter. Chief Justice Roberts (thanks!) has already signaled that he is not willing to stop DACA because reliance, and we know the Chief will never let anyone lose health care coverage. Twelve years later, Obama and Biden will simply get away with it.
When all is said and done, President George W. Bush's decision to appoint Roberts to fill Chief Justice Rehnquist's seat will likely be Bush's most consequential decision--more important than anything he did after 9/11, in Iraq, or Afghanistan. All of those actions have faded into the rear-view mirror, but we are still stuck with the Chief. And it was a decision that Bush made under tight time constraints with (perhaps) the understanding that Harriet Miers would be the backup option.
In any event, who lied? DACA and ACA have come full circle.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Love Fancy Nancy’s open mouthed look of disbelief that someone would question Barry Hussein Osama’s Infallibility (Peace be upon Him). Didn’t seem to hurt Wilson’s career.
I wonder if the Professor has ever changed his mind about something after 15 years and, if so, does that make him a liar too?
Change his mind?
A primary criticism, that was said to be completely untrue, is very much true.
Meh, it was just somebody changing their mind. How extremely convenient.
And I was being generous. It wasn't even Biden who made that promise 15 years ago.
Criticize the policy, by all means, but claiming it's all part of a 15 year conspiracy is space laser stuff and does not help your argument.
Nice strawman.
That's what smart people do!
"Criticize the policy, by all means, but claiming it’s all part of a 15 year conspiracy is space laser stuff and does not help your argument."
Just odd that the "untrue" statement ended up being 100% correct. Man, people noticing patterns are inconvenient.
It was untrue, for 15 years. How many politician's promises last that long?
If you demand eternity I have some bad news about income taxes, they won't go away for good once the war is over.
To the extent that states have to pay for this coverage, they might have standing to challenge this in a way they might not have had in some previous cases.
In general, I tend to agree that while the President and relevant administrative agency may have some discretion in boundary cases, and I’ve defended the legality of the suspension-of-prosecution element of DACA as within the bounds of permissible prosecutorial discretion, the administration cannot give out federal benefits to people deemed ineligible for them by statute.
The theory behind prosecutorial discretion is there aren't enough resources to go after everything, not that the executive can decline because he disagrees with the law.
Which, btw, I have no problem with. But I am not the one launching lawsuits against the executive for declining to enforce other things, like certain environmental laws.
Situational ethics: The high valuation of a philosophical principle when it supports your already decided-upon position, and the pooh poohing of it when it gets in the way of another.
The theory behind prosecutorial discretion is there aren’t enough resources to go after everything, not that the executive can decline because he disagrees with the law.
No, the human element in prosecutorial discretion is an intended part of the system as well.
The law as inflexible robot is a common dystopia in Star Trek. Don't pull a Landru.
"Sarcastr0 comes in hard for the rule of man over the rule of law" WAS on my bingo card today!
No, a foundational principle of our system of government is that to convict someone of a crime, you have to have all three branches of government agree. Congress has to pass a law, the administration has to enforce it, and a jury has to convict. That’s intended by design.
The President is given broad diplomatic and foreign policy powers by the Constitutuon. Since immigration policy is to some extent dependent on diplomacy and foreign policy, the Immigration statutes appropriately give the President a great deal of discretion.
But spending is different. There the Constitution favors Congress. So I have been skeptical of the constitutionality of both President Trump and President Biden’s efforts to go around Congress to spend money on major programs that Congress refused to spend money on when it was asked.
"The theory behind prosecutorial discretion is there aren’t enough resources to go after everything, not that the executive can decline because he disagrees with the law."
Okay, there aren't enough resources to go after everything. What is the basis for prioritization? Why doesn't the executive's disagreement with particular laws factor into that?
There’s a fairly large body of historical evidence suggesting that simply isn’t so. One option open to government on highly controversial issues is to have the legislature pass a law but the executive rarely or never enforce it. This conveys society’s judgment that something is wrong and imposes some collateral consequences on those who do it, but not heavy ones.
There are lots of examples. Througghout our history laws of all kinds – fugitive slave laws, alcohol prohibition laws, gambling, prostitution, fornication, adultery, sodomy, more recently marijuana, quite a few more – have remained on state and federal law books, with legislatures sometimes repeatedly refusing to repeal them, but have gone actively unenforced by local prosecutors, sometimes only in comparatively liberal areas but sometimes across the state.
It’s a part of our history. Whether people like the approach or not – intellectuals tend not to – it’s a legitimate way for a polity to compromise a disagreement about whether something should be outlawed or not.
So I’ve tended to defend progrsms like the prosecution-deferral part of DACA, as well as recent programs in more liberal cities to decriminalize certain low-level crimes, as within the established history and tradition of prosecutorial discretion.
Don’t like it? Elect Presidents, governors, and prosecutors who believe in enforcing the law you want enforced.
Eisenhower said that appointing Earl Warren was the biggest mistake he made as President, and I wonder if Bush '43 will eventually say the same thing about Roberts.
This is a poorly written post (no surprise), but the kernel of truth here is about legislative intent. Given Obama's explicit statements and the regulatory history, there's a pretty strong argument that the Obamacare statute was not understood to permit these benefits (and TBC, I say this despite favoring the program on the merits-- I think it is stupid and cruel to exclude undocumented immigrants who have been in the country a long time from health care programs). And I assume courts may see this the same way.
If we’re not supposed to be considering statements by members of congress who voted on he stuff as evidence of legislative intent, how does a political message from the president come in?
I assume you are asking the people who used Trump's comments to overturn the travel bans.
I am not an originalist. I think that all of this comes in, although statements of single legislators are not very relevant for the reasons Scalia used to articulate.
But here you have the President hoping to induce passage of the bill by assuring Congress it doesn't extend benefits to this group. That's a fairly strong piece of evidence IMO.
The Supreme Court is turning into Humpty Dumpty. The language of the law means whatever they want it to mean, no more, no less.
Yes
See the horrific ruling regarding the 14th banning
insurrectionists from holding ANY office.
At what point will the Supreme Court rule that DACA recipients can vote in US federal elections? At what point will the Supreme Court rule that undocumented residents can vote in US federal elections? At what point will the Supreme Court rule that non-resident, non-US citizens can vote in US federal elections? It will be a real problem gathering and counting the mail-in ballots from Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. It will also be a problem apportioning those votes to the appropriate state and local jurisdictions.
At what will Congress accept these children who have grown up in our country and offer them a path to citizenship.
On principle alone...never.
The Center for American Progress offered a helpful fact-check, finding that “Every proposal on the table explicitly disqualifies illegal immigrants from receiving federal benefits.”
But there was no enforcement of that. So while DACA technically excluded illegal immigrants, in reality it included them with everyone else. So that’s why this change is not an actual change.
Nobody lied.
Obama Admin 2009 thru 2017
Biden Admin 2021 ..... ongoing.
I agree here. What if we went down and looked at every law and how different administrations have modified the law and decided the original Presidential signer was liable for every change since the signing. I think we see more violations than just the ACA/DACA matter.
It doesn't seem possible to lie about the future. Insofar as it pertains to actions not yet taken by others that are not part of reality yet, or at least any state of knowledge to which a truth value could be assigned.
The gaslighting will continue until the policy improves.
If we are going to dredge up lies about the ACA how about President Trump's lie that he would replace the ACA with a better program that cost less. He been out of office for over three years and I am still waiting for him to introduce the plan.
Gee, Trump had unilateral power to do that...oh wait, courts decided that Obama's executive action is more important than ANY OTHER EXECUTIVES' action.
I not suggesting Trump had unilateral power. I am suggesting he lied that he even had a plan.
Seems safe to call these lies. Certainly they were false, at least.
But maybe Obama will oppose Biden’s action as unconstitutional - indicating that he was not lying after all and was acting and speaking in good faith? (Ha!)
Let’s not forget Obama basically said DACA would be unconstitutional, but then later said, “well but Congress wouldn’t give me what I want so here it is anyway.”
Also, will Ilya Somin ever apologize for being wrong? His main argument was that DACA was constitutional because it could be easily and completely reversed by a President in the future. I called it on these very comment threads way back then. But to my knowledge he has never admitted that he was wrong. Instead, as I recall he doubled down and contradicted his earlier self without admitting it.
What do you expect from Ilya the Lesser? Self awareness? LMFAO.
What makes this Ilya the lesser . . . that he is a libertarian (rather than one of the faux libertarians at this blog), or that is not the right-wing bigot another Ilya is?