Back in 2014, Congress took the unusual step of suing the executive branch, claiming that the president was not enforcing certain laws. This was a significant moment, particularly since the lawmakers targeting Obamacare had long sought to dismantle it.
This lawsuit was centered around U.S. House of Representatives v. Burwell, where the Republican-led House took action against the administration for failing to implement a part of Obama’s health insurance law. Ironically, some of the same lawmakers involved previously stated that this provision would be harmful to businesses, as it required large employers to provide health insurance.
Another key argument from Republicans was that the administration was allegedly using funds from the Treasury to pay subsidies to insurance companies—money that hadn’t been specified in the original bill passed solely by Democrats four years earlier.
During his time in office, Obama managed to preserve vulnerable programs by balancing punishment and reward strategies. There were various lawsuits from states and organizations regarding specific aspects, especially concerning religious exemptions for contraception coverage and expensive employer mandates. Yet the House’s challenge raised more fundamental questions: Did the president possess a sort of “prosecutorial discretion” extending beyond criminal law? Could he allocate funds for his policy priorities without Congress giving the green light?
This debate on prosecutorial discretion was quite heated back then. Just a day before the lawsuit launched in November, following a rough midterm for the Democratic Party, President Obama announced a series of executive orders aimed at protecting around 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, while also providing them a pathway to citizenship. It seemed clear that he was signaling to Republicans that he was willing to act unilaterally.
In response, Democrats dismissed the lawsuit as merely a political stunt, criticizing it alongside the medical industry. Some even suggested that major law firms might be affected by it. Initially, there was some hesitation as members on the right considered the implications of their own executive actions. They wondered what would happen if the House won: If employers faced new mandates, would premiums go up for consumers?
Still, House Speaker John Boehner pressed forward, stating, “If this president can write his own laws, future presidents can do the same.” He emphasized that it was the House’s duty to protect the Constitution through this lawsuit.
This took place during a time when there was a rising respect for executive authority, especially after the Supreme Court upheld the mandate as a tax. A surprising level of admiration was evident among Democrats for the Court’s decisions.
Eventually, a lower court, presided over by a Bush-appointed judge, dismissed the enforcement part of the lawsuit but allowed the slush fund allegations to continue. The White House called this “another partisan attack,” asserting confidence in winning the appeal. However, in May 2016, a ruling stated that public funds could not be spent without congressional approval.
If Hillary Clinton had won the presidential election that year as many anticipated, this case would likely have gone to the Supreme Court—potentially becoming a landmark case regarding the separation of powers. However, with Trump’s victory, incoming House Speaker Paul Ryan chose to drop the lawsuit, considering the likelihood of the new administration’s plans to halt the dubious payments.
Holding back on a court ruling that could challenge Congress’s authority made sense in Ryan’s view; many believed the Affordable Care Act wouldn’t last long under a new presidency.
However, the outcomes surprised everyone. Not only did Obamacare persist, but the debate around it continues today, especially regarding the extensions of subsidies passed in 2021 due to the pandemic. There’s a question still hanging: Should these be extended further, potentially costing $415 billion over the next decade?
Obama was indeed correct about administrative overreach. If he keeps the program running long enough to secure essential enrollment figures, it could become politically irreversible.
The shifts in political alliances show how Republicans depend heavily on working-class voters who support expanded Medicaid. Wealthy older Americans often use Obamacare to bridge gaps between employer-provided insurance and Medicare.
As for the current funding battle, Congress still holds the power to create distress through funding denials. Naturally, issues arise with government shutdowns, particularly impacting soldiers not receiving pay. Yet, a sort of tacit agreement has emerged, allowing the president to move money around for payroll, avoiding conflict over this point.
This situation reflects just a few of the laws that presidents sidestep or ignore—from declaring war on drug cartels to banning certain apps.
