A Biden administration regulation that let DACA individuals to enroll in health insurance via the Affordable Care Act was halted by a federal judge in North Dakota.
U.S. District Court Judge Dan Traynor ruled Monday in favor of a coalition of 19 Republican state attorneys general who sued the rule in August to stop it from going into effect, arguing that it violates a provision that forbids providing public benefits to those who do not have legal immigration status. During his first term in office, Trump appointed Traynor.
On November 1, open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act, often known as Obamacare, began for those who were already receiving benefits under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA). It was anticipated that coverage for individuals who signed up would begin as early as January 1.
Their only choice was to obtain coverage through their workplaces or state programs that provide it, as they had been prohibited from obtaining government-funded health insurance. Others depended on free or inexpensive treatment from community health clinics or went without insurance.
It was a “big win for the rule of law,” according to Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who spearheaded the legal challenge against the Biden administration.
In a post on X, he stated that “Congress never intended that illegal aliens should receive Obama care benefits.”
In June 2012, then-President Barack Obama signed the DACA executive order, which granted work permits and prevented deportation for illegal immigrants who entered the country as minors.
The Biden administration regulation is still in force in other states, according to Drishti Pillai, director of immigrant health policy at KFF, a nonprofit organization that studies health policy matters. Monday’s decision only applies to the 19 states who brought the action.
These states include North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, and North Dakota. It’s
However, Pillai warned that the removal of extended coverage would leave thousands of DACA applicants in those areas without access to an inexpensive alternative. It seems doubtful that the decision would be appealed, she continued.
“The Trump administration appears unlikely to appeal any ruling against DACA or the coverage expansion, given that President-elect Trump attempted to end DACA during his first term and his views on immigration more generally,” Pillai added.
Trump stated that he would collaborate with Democrats to reach an agreement that permits DACA beneficiaries to remain in the country in an interview with Kristen Welker of NBC News that aired on Sunday.
It should have been possible to work anything out during the past three or four years, but it never was, he stated. “I want to be able to work something out,” he remarked.
The federal government was examining the judgment and its implications, according to a post on Healthcare.gov that NBC News was sent to by a Department of Health and Human Services official.
