Biden-Harris Admin Hit With Major New Lawsuit

A coalition of 15 states, led by Kansas, has filed a lawsuit to block the Biden-Harris administration from extending taxpayer-funded healthcare through the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to illegal immigrants. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, along with attorneys general from 14 other states, filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, Western Division. The defendants in the lawsuit are the U.S. government and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

The lawsuit challenges a recent CMS rule that broadens the definition of “lawfully present” individuals in the U.S. to include recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The change would make DACA recipients eligible for ACA benefits, which the coalition argues is both illegal and financially burdensome. Illegal immigration has spiked under the Biden-Harris regime to record numbers, and the issue has become a top concern among a growing majority of Americans this election cycle. Harris, as alleged ‘border czar,’ has done little to stem the flow of illegal migrants and drugs after Biden assigned her the task very early in their term.

The complaint argues that DACA recipients, who are by definition unlawfully present in the U.S., should not qualify for federal public benefits under the ACA. The states claim that the CMS rule violates the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which limits federal benefits to certain qualified aliens. According to the lawsuit, DACA recipients do not meet these qualifications. “Aliens granted deferred action under DACA are not included in the definition of such qualified aliens,” the complaint reads. It further argued that “DACA recipients are, by definition, unlawfully present in the United States.”

Established by the Obama administration in 2012, DACA allows certain individuals brought to the U.S. as children, who lack lawful immigration status, to receive a renewable two-year reprieve from deportation and become eligible for a work permit. The program has been a focal point of political and legal debates, with various efforts made over the years to either terminate or expand it. Then-President Obama had said dozens of times beforehand that he did not have the authority to change immigration laws before he arbitrarily did so. Subsequent federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have refused to overturn it.

But other federal judges have ruled against the program. One federal judge, for example, has ruled against DACA for the second time in a comprehensive lawsuit led by Texas aiming to dismantle the program entirely, according to the Center Square. The issue is anticipated to escalate to the U.S. Supreme Court for a final decision. In response, President Biden took steps in June to bolster deportation protections for DACA recipients and streamline the application process for temporary visas.

The lawsuit argues that the CMS rule change constitutes an overreach of executive authority and is inconsistent with federal law. The plaintiffs accuse the Biden-Harris administration of trying to circumvent Congress to extend benefits to individuals who are in the country illegally. Additionally, the complaint points out that the rule contradicts the ACA, which restricts eligibility for benefits to “citizens or nationals of the United States and aliens lawfully present in the United States.”

The states argue that the CMS rule is arbitrary and capricious, claiming that it reverses previous policies without sufficient justification. “CMS’s determination that deferred action recipients are lawfully present is obviously a self-contradiction: it defines as ‘lawfully present’ the class of individuals whom DHS is deferring removal action based on their unlawful presence.”