HEALTHCARE:
Overhead costs exploding under ObamaCare, study finds
“Five years after the passage of ObamaCare, there is one expense that’s still causing sticker shock across the healthcare industry: overhead costs. The administrative costs for healthcare plans are expected to explode by more than a quarter of a trillion dollars over the next decade, according to a new study published by the Health Affairs blog. The $270 billion in new costs, for both private insurance companies and government programs, will be “over and above what would have been expected had the law not been enacted,” one of the authors, David Himmelstein, wrote Wednesday. Those costs will be particularly high this year, when overhead is expected to make up 45 percent of all federal spending related to the Affordable Care Act. By 2022, that ratio will decrease to about 20 percent of federal spending related to the law.
The study is based on data from both the government’s National Health Expenditure Projections and the Congressional Budget Office. Both authors are members of Physicians for a National Health Program, which advocates for a single-payer system. “This number – 22.5 percent of all new spending going into overheard – is shocking even to me, to be honest. It’s almost one out of every four dollars is just going to bureaucracy,” the study’s other author, Steffie Woolhandler, said Wednesday. She said private insurers have been expanding their administrative overhead despite some regulations from the Obama administration to control those costs, such as the medical loss ratio, which requires a certain amount of premium dollars to be spent directly on healthcare. She argues that a better approach would be a type of Medicare-for-all system. The extra administrative costs amount to the equivalent of $1,375 per newly insured person per year, the authors write. About two-thirds of the new overhead costs are the result of rising enrollment in private plans, which the authors say carries “high costs for administration and profits.”…”
http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/243188-overhead-costs-exploding-under-obamacare
Obamacare to add nearly $300 billion in overhead: Study
“Obamacare will add more than $270 billion in overhead costs for insurers and the federal government over the next seven years, a new study reveals. Nearly two-thirds of the new overhead, $172.2 billion, goes to increased private insurer’s administrative costs due to rising enrollment. The rest go to expanded government programs such as Medicaid, according to the study released Tuesday in the blog for the journal Health Affairs. In addition to Medicaid, the overhead costs go toward running the health exchanges for Obamacare, according to authors David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler, professors at the City University of New York School of Public Health. The professors estimated the overhead costs after examining projections released by the federal government in July….”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obamacare-to-add-nearly-300-billion-in-overhead-study/article/2565084?custom_click=rss
Obamacare’s big overhead bill? Try $273.6 billion
http://www.cnbc.com/id/102707721
Obamacare premiums could rise, some by double-digits, in 2016, Ohio filings show
“At least two large health insurance carriers, Medical Mutual of Ohio and Aetna, want to raise Obamacare premiums in Ohio by double digits in 2016. Medical Mutual wants, on average, 14.48 percent more. Aetna wants a 13.2 percent average hike. Both companies cite higher health care costs among their reasons, and they point to the planned rollback of a federal reinsurance program that until now helped keep premiums somewhat lower. Yet several other companies competing in the same market, including Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield and Summa Insurance Co., are seeking smaller hikes, a Northeast Ohio Media Group review of all publicly available rate requests in Ohio shows. Anthem’s average premium would rise by 4.06 percent if approved, and Summa’s by 3.69 percent. This suggests that, if the rates hold and the Affordable Care Act does not change as a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision expected in June, Ohioans who get coverage through Healthcare.gov could see a competitive insurance shopping season late this year. Still, Medical Mutual’s 2016 rate request comes atop its 7.73 percent average hike in 2015, pushing its two-year average above 20 percent and likely giving fodder for debate to Obamacare critics. Aetna just entered Ohio’s marketplace for these policies this year but said its 2015 prices represented a 7.5 percent cut when compared with its similar policies. The Affordable Care Act, or ACA, passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Barack Obama in 2010, required most Americans to get health coverage by 2014 or face fines. More than 234,000 Ohioans were signed up for such coverage by the end of the 2015 open enrollment period, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS. Millions more got their health coverage through their employers, and their premiums — generally a private matter — will not be the same as those mentioned here. The ACA, generally known as “Obamacare,” has been controversial from the start. Critics resented the government mandate and the taxpayer subsidies required to help many people pay for premiums. Proponents meantime praised the fact that people with preexisting medical conditions could not be denied coverage and their individual health status could not force them into policies with higher premiums…”
http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2015/05/obamacare_premiums_could_rise.html
Cut Health Coverage Or Send Obamacare Cadillac Tax To Junkyard?
“Obamacare’s 40% Cadillac tax is on high-priced health plans provided by employers. It doesn’t take effect until 2018, but it is expected to pay for a major piece of Obamacare. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the tax should generate $5 billion in revenue in 2018 alone. That take goes up to a whopping $34 billion by 2024. Yet increasingly, there appears to be wide agreement that companies right and left are seeking to avoid the bite of the Cadillac tax.
A survey by the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans reveals that 62% of companies facing a 40% Cadillac tax hit in 2018 are already changing their coverage to avoid it. Conversely, only 2.5 percent of companies say they will pay it. How do you avoid it? Change to higher deductible plans, reduce benefits, shift more costs to employees, or even drop high-cost plans altogether. The tax is increasingly under fire from Congress. This marketplace reaction is fueling the bonfire. If no one pays it, how else will we pay for Obamacare? The Supreme Court upheld Obamacare as a tax law, and it contains many taxes. One tax that hasn’t yet kicked in is the Cadillac tax. In enacting the law in 2010, the Cadillac tax was buried, not applying until 2018. As the IRS gets ready for 2018, it released guidance setting out approaches to the excise tax. Like all of Obamacare, the Cadillac tax is enormously complex and nuanced. Of all the taxes in the ironically named Affordable Care Act, none is more onerous than the Cadillac tax. It is a big tax too, a whopping 40% on top of all other federal taxes. What’s more, it is an excise tax, one of the most dreaded kinds of taxes there is. It is a rifle shot tax that is supposed to discourage something very specific. It now looks likely to apply to more people and to more plans. In that sense, it is a kind of rifle shot that has turned into a shotgun blast. You may not have noticed this tax or even heard of it. One reason is the delayed effective date, not kicking in until 2018. That delayed effective date clearly deemphasized the provision…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/05/27/cut-health-coverage-or-send-obamacare-cadillac-tax-to-junkyard/
Cruz Threatens to Subpoena Treasury Officials to Testify About Obamacare Rules
“Sen. Ted Cruz is warning he might seek to compel testimony from the Treasury Department about the Affordable Care Act. The Texas Republican presidential candidate, who has the gavel of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight, Agency Action, Federal Rights and Federal Courts, said his staff had been informed by the Obama administration that witnesses would not be available to testify about the rule-making process for providing subsidies under Obamacare because of ongoing litigation. “For two main reasons, this excuse is entirely invalid,” Cruz wrote in a new letter to Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew. “First, Congress retains its right to conduct oversight of the executive branch at all times, regardless of any perceptions of poor timing by, or inconvenience to, the executive branch. The Senate Judiciary Committee has obligations to ensure the proper functioning of the federal government at all times, and not just during windows of convenience for political officials. Second, your Department’s pending litigation justification is without basis, particularly given how you have provided at least one Department witness for the exact same topic during the pendency of other litigation over the last few years.” In the letter, Cruz said if three tax policy officials at the Treasury Department are not made available on a voluntary basis, he may pursue other methods to get them to appear. The subcommittee had been planning to hold the hearing on June 4. The Senate Finance Committee has primary jurisdiction over tax issues, but other committees have been holding hearings about the health care law’s implementation. “If you do not opt to assist Congress and make all three individuals available voluntarily, I may have no choice but to pursue other options, including compulsory process, to make them available for testimony,” Cruz wrote in the missive to Lew. “Please note, in the event we are compelled to use compulsory process to ensure the attendance of these witnesses, the two-week courtesy notice prior to testimony is no longer applicable, and these individuals can be summoned for testimony at any time deemed convenient for the Committee.”…”
http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/cruz-threatens-to-subpoena-treasury-officials-to-testify-about-obamacare-rules/?dcz=
Medicaid Health Plans Face Quality And Performance Ratings
“Just as millions of Americans enroll in the expanded Medicaid health insurance program under the Affordable Care Act, the Obama administration is rolling out new rules that will measure quality and performance of private plans that provide such benefits. Already, the federal government rates private health plans that contract with the Medicare program for seniors with a five-star system that has awarded bonus payments for high-performing plans, so the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announcement late Tuesday that quality ratings were coming to the Medicaid program for poor Americans seems a natural progression. CMS said measures are expected to be similar to those used for Medicare plans, evaluating health outcomes and patient experience enrollees have with the private plans. Details have to be worked out with states that also have a role administering Medicaid, CMS said. The proposed new rules also face a public comment period. More Americans than ever before are enrolling in private health plans that contract with state Medicaid programs for the poor. About three in five of all Medicaid beneficiaries access benefits through private health plans today compared to just 8% of Medicaid beneficiaries who were in private plans in 1992, CMS said. The more than 600 pages of regulations, linked here, would have each state that contracts with a health plan “establish a quality rating system to generate plan ratings.” Medicaid is funded jointly by the federal government and states, which have long had latitude in how they administer their programs…”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2015/05/27/medicaid-health-plans-face-quality-and-performance-ratings/
Obamacare’s Intent? Just Read the Law
“By the end of next month, the Supreme Court will have released its decision in King v. Burwell, the case that will determine whether subsidies will be available for insurance purchased through a federally operated exchange. The plaintiffs say this is impermissible, because the law provides for subsidies only for policies purchased on exchanges “established by the state”, probably inserted in the law as an inducement to states to set up exchanges. The defenders of the status quo argue that this is insane, because they’d never structure the system so as to risk having needy people lose subsidies, and because no one who actually worked on the law remembers having any such intention. Robert Pear airs both of the defender’s points for the New York Times, interviewing political folks who were there during the negotiations, and staffers who helped draft the legislative language. Naturally, given my continuing opposition to Obamacare, a number of Obamacare supporters have asked me what I thought of this, with veiled hints that I should find this totally devastating to the arguments in the King case. My actual reaction is as follows: 1. This is not new. 2. This is incomplete. 3. This is not legally relevant, for good reason. 4. If it were legally relevant, it would not be as helpful to the case as liberals think.
This is not the first time a media outlet has talked to folks who were involved in the process, and recorded them saying that they never, no way and no how, intended to deny subsidies to states–or reasoning, like Olympia Snowe in Pear’s article, that they couldn’t have set it up this way, because it would be crazy to choose a structure that threatened subsidies for people in states that didn’t set up exchanges. These articles, however, often don’t provide important counterarguments. For example: Congress indisputably chose exactly that crazy, insane, totally inconceivable structure for the Medicaid expansion passed in the same law. In fact, it was considerably more coercive: if you didn’t expand, you lost all your Medicaid funding, not just the new stuff. Why would Congress choose a structure that might result in a net loss of insurance coverage? We can sit around and speculate, but ultimately the correct answer is “Who cares? They did.” Or consider the “drafting error” interpretation that many politicians have offered. Here’s a puzzle about that, noted by Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon in their amicus brief supporting the King plaintiffs: At several points during the drafting process, people kept adding the phrase “established by the state” to the middle of “exchange established under Section 1311,” which Cannon and Adler say was unnecessary unless they saw some distinction between exchanges established under Section 1311, and exchanges established by the state under that section. This language survived the process of merging and reconciling bills, even while other sections were amended to ensure parity of requirements on federal and state exchanges….”
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-05-26/obamacare-s-intent-just-read-the-law
Olympia Snowe and Jeff Bingaman Aren’t Making Sense on Obamacare
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/418951/olympia-snowe-and-jeff-bingaman-arent-making-sense-obamacare-ramesh-ponnuru
Senate GOP prepared to replace Obamacare subsidies
If the Supreme Court strikes down current subsidies, some Republicans are wary of booting millions off health care rolls.
“Preparing for a Supreme Court decision that could strike down Obamacare’s subsidies for nearly 7.5 million people this summer, Senate Republicans are coalescing around a plan to resurrect them — at a steep price for the White House. With several Senate Republicans facing tough reelections, and control of the chamber up for grabs, 31 senators have signed on to a bill written by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) that would restore the subsidies for current Obamacare enrollees through September 2017. But the administration would have to pay a heavy price — the bill would also repeal Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates and insurance coverage requirements…”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/republicans-still-groping-for-obamacare-replacement-118272.html
Lawmaker: SCOTUS will decide on ObamaCare lawsuit
“A GOP lawmaker predicts the Supreme Court will ultimately decide if the House has standing to sue the Obama administration for unilateral actions surrounding ObamaCare. Rep. Tom Rice (S.C.), a major force behind the movement to sue the administration for executive overreach, tells The Hill that Thursday’s hearing in D.C. district court is the beginning of a legal procedural back-and-forth between House-hired attorneys and government lawyers on the question. “This is not a hearing on the merits of the case, all this is is a preliminary motion to decide whether … there’s standing for Congress to sue. We have to resolve that before we get to the merits of whether the president was acting within his role or with this constitutional authority,” Rice, a former tax attorney, explained in an on-camera interview. He added that “regardless of what happens on Thursday, one side or the other is going to appeal … they will probably be up to the Supreme Court by the end of the year.”….”
http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/243257-lawmaker-scotus-will-decide-on-obamacare-lawsuit
ObamaCare fallout? Supreme Court ruling sets up potential Obama, GOP battle
“The upcoming Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act could wipe out insurance for millions of people covered by the president’s health care plan, leaving states that didn’t set up their own health care markets scrambling to subsidize coverage for those left uninsured. Twenty-six of the 34 states that would be hardest hit by the ruling have GOP governors. Twenty-two of the 24 Senate seats that are up for re-election in 2016 are currently held by Republicans. What that means is that it’s the GOP – and not the White House –that’s working on damage control. President Obama’s landmark legislation offers subsidized private insurance to those without access to it on the job. In the Supreme Court case, opponents of the law argue that its literal wording allows the government to subsidize coverage only in states that set up their own health insurance markets. The justices will determine whether the law makes people in all 50 states eligible for federal tax subsidies — or just those who live in states that created their own health insurance marketplaces. The question matters because about three dozen states opted against their own marketplace, or exchange, and instead rely on the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Healthcare.gov. If the court rules against the Obama administration, insurance subsidies for people in those states would be in jeopardy. If the court invalidates the subsidies in those states, the results would be “ugly,” former Kansas insurance commissioner Sandy Praeger told The Associated Press. “People who are reasonably healthy would just drop coverage,” she said. “Only the unhealthy would keep buying health care. It would really exacerbate the problem of the cost of health insurance.” Praeger, a Republican who retired this year, called it “a classic death spiral,” using a term for market collapse. In March, the Supreme Court appeared divided along ideological lines after hearing the challenge that, if struck down, could affect up to 8 million policy holders…”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/25/ugly-potential-fallout-from-supreme-court-health-care-case/
The New York Times blows a hole in the case against Obamacare
“There are basically two versions of the looming Supreme Court case against Obamacare. One of them makes sense but doesn’t pose enough of a threat to Obamacare to satisfy Republicans. The other poses a real threat to Obamacare, but it’s never made much sense — and the New York Times just blew a hole right through the middle of it. The version that makes some sense goes like this: section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is poorly worded, and if you read it completely out of context it seems to say the law’s tax credits are only available in state-run exchanges. The problem for Republicans, as law professor Nicholas Bagley has written, is that the Supreme Court isn’t going to gut Obamacare over a grammar dispute. The Court is deferential to other branches of government, so the bar for reinterpreting a law like Obamacare is high; the plaintiffs will basically have to prove that the statute is worded unambiguously and “the IRS’s contrary interpretation is downright unreasonable.” But basically everything else in the bill makes clear that the IRS’s interpretation is reasonable — and, frankly, correct. So simply arguing that Congress made a drafting error won’t get Republicans where they want to go….”
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/27/8667813/king-burwell-obamacare-new-york-times
Analysts Foresee ‘Death Spiral’ for Obamacare
“A GOP lawmaker predicts the Supreme Court will ultimately decide if the House has standing to sue the Obama administration for unilateral actions surrounding ObamaCare. Rep. Tom Rice (S.C.), a major force behind the movement to sue the administration for executive overreach, tells The Hill that Thursday’s hearing in D.C. district court is the beginning of a legal procedural back-and-forth between House-hired attorneys and government lawyers on the question. “This is not a hearing on the merits of the case, all this is is a preliminary motion to decide whether … there’s standing for Congress to sue. We have to resolve that before we get to the merits of whether the president was acting within his role or with this constitutional authority,” Rice, a former tax attorney, explained in an on-camera interview. He added that “regardless of what happens on Thursday, one side or the other is going to appeal … they will probably be up to the Supreme Court by the end of the year.” Watch the video above to see Rice discuss more on Thursday’s court hearing and the underlying lawsuit…”
http://thehill.com/video/in-the-news/243257-lawmaker-scotus-will-decide-on-obamacare-lawsuit
COVERED CALIFORNIA MAY MERGE WITH BANKRUPT STATE OBAMACARE EXCHANGES
“With major insurers in some states proposing up to 51 percent Obamacare insurance premium increases, liberal Democrats are scrambling to avoid a political and financial disaster. One proposal is to merge California’s financially troubled “Covered California” exchange with the even more insolvent state exchanges, like “Cover Oregon,” which was forced to shut down last year. Obamacare provided $4.8 billion in federal funding for 13 states to set up their own independent healthcare exchanges. But after just 17 months of operations, spending has frittered away that money and most exchanges are experiencing serious cash-flow problems. The Covered California exchange is already running an $80 deficit as of April, and the Cover Oregon was shut down in April 2014 and opted to transition to the federal system after blowing through $248 million in federal cash. Governor Jerry Brown has an opportunity to demonstrate his national stature by offering to lead the merger of the California and Oregon exchanges. Conceivably, he could then propose rolling-up other financially struggling exchanges, like New York and Connecticut exchanges, which are just beginning preliminary joint-venture talks. Oregon tried to publicly berate Oracle Corporation, the lead website developer for “Cover Oregon,” for the failure of the state exchange due to technology problems allegedly outside of bureaucrats’ control. But in a lawsuit filed against “Cover Oregon,” Oracle claimed they are still owed $23 million under their contract. According to the Los Angeles Times, the lawsuit noted that hundreds of thousands of Oregonians were enrolled in health insurance by back-office customer service representatives and health insurance agents using the software built by Oracle and a dozen other contractors. But state officials never terminated the temporary administrative workers and switched over so consumers could enroll on their own online. Although Obamacare premium rates and operating costs seem completely out of control, The Hill reported that there would be merger efficiencies from consolidating call centers and using one standard website platform to keep expenses low. But after Delaware, Maryland and West Virginia commissioned a study on the merits of merging their exchanges in June 2013, the idea was dropped over problems of governance structure and which state’s staff would suffer terminations…”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/27/covered-california-may-merge-with-bankrupt-state-obamacare-exchanges/
Yet Another Terrible Idea: States Consider Combining Their Failed ObamaCare Exchanges
http://humanevents.com/2015/05/27/yet-another-terrible-idea-states-consider-combining-their-failed-obamacare-exchanges/
Kasich says he’s not an Obamacare hypocrite
“Would-be presidential candidate John Kasich, defended his expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act on Wednesday, while slamming President Barack Obama’s signature law at the same time. Kasich, a second-term governor of Ohio, told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “The Lead” that his support of a Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, did not amount to support for the Obamacare itself. Opposition to Obamacare remains a key litmus test for Republican presidential hopefuls…”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/27/politics/john-kasich-medicaid-obamacare-reagan/
IMMIGRATION:
Appeals court rules against Obama on immigration program
“A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to allow one of President Obama’s signature immigration proposals to move forward, throwing into doubt whether the program will even begin before the president leaves office. In a split 2-to-1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans denied the Obama administration’s emergency request to lift a lower court’s injunction on an initiative to defer the deportations of illegal immigrants and grant them work permits. Obama announced the program through executive action in November, after House Republicans blocked an effort to pass a comprehensive immigration bill. The president said the federal government does not have resources to remove all of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants and must focus on hardened criminals and potential terrorists. But Texas and 25 other states sued the administration, calling the move unconstitutional, and U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Tex., ruled in February that the launch of the expanded program should be put on hold until the case is resolved. The Obama administration sought an immediate stay from the 5th Circuit last month, arguing that the states lacked the legal authority to sue the U.S. government over policies that relate to federal control of the nation’s borders. The 5th Circuit panel rejected that argument Tuesday. In a 68-page ruling, Judge Jerry Smith stated that Hanen’s injunction will remain in place because the administration is “unlikely to succeed on the merits of its appeal.” Smith wrote that Texas had successfully established that it would incur a financial burden if it was required to issue driver’s licenses to immigrants who qualified for deportation protections under Obama’s deferred-action program. “The public interest favors maintenance of the injunction” as the legality of Obama’s immigration programs is decided, Smith wrote in an opinion joined by Judge Jennifer Elrod…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-on-immigration/2015/05/26/7546832a-03d9-11e5-a428-c984eb077d4e_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
Appeals court refuses to lift hold on Obama immigration action
“A federal appeals court refused Tuesday to allow the implementation, for now, of President Obama’s executive action that could shield from deportation as many as 5 million illegal immigrants. The U.S. Justice Department had asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen’s earlier decision temporarily halting the administration’s plan. Hanen issued the temporary hold in February, after 26 states filed a lawsuit alleging Obama’s action was unconstitutional. Two out of the three judges on a court panel, though, voted Tuesday to deny the government’s request, as the underlying case is argued. White House Spokesperson Brandi Hoffine said after the ruling, “today, two judges of the Fifth Circuit chose to misinterpret the facts and the law in denying the government’s request for a stay.” The majority opinion reasoned that lifting the temporary hold — known in judicial parlance as issuing a “stay” — could cause serious problems for states should they ultimately win their challenge. It said the states have shown that “issuance of the stay will substantially injure” them. It continued: “A stay would enable DAPA beneficiaries to apply for driver’s licenses and other benefits, and it would be difficult for the states to retract those benefits or recoup their costs even if they won on the merits. That is particularly true in light of the district court’s findings regarding the large number of potential beneficiaries, including at least 500,000 in Texas alone.” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised Tuesday’s decision. “The separation of powers and check and balances remain the law of the land, and this decision is a victory for those committed to preserving the rule of law in America,” he said in a written statement. The White House has said the program is intended to primarily help immigrants brought to the U.S. as children and those with children who are U.S. citizens…”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/26/appeals-court-refuses-to-lift-hold-on-obama-immigration-action/
Texas Gov. Abbott declares victory over President Obama in amnesty fight
“Texas Gov. Greg Abbott predicted Wednesday that the U.S. Supreme Court would ultimately reject a potential Obama administration appeal on the president’s immigration executive actions and that Mr. Obama’s actions are unlikely to actually go into effect before the president leaves office. “We’re not even fighting in the court system about the legal validity of the order — we’re just fighting in the court system about whether or not the executive order goes into effect while we’re legally fighting about that order,” Mr. Abbott said Wednesday on Fox News. “And I got to tell you, it would be highly unusual for the United States Supreme Court to grant the Obama administration’s request and allow this executive order to go into place while we are still litigating it.” A federal appeals panel on Tuesday declined to lift an injunction against Mr. Obama’s deportation amnesty announced in November 2014, siding with District Court Judge Andrew S. Hanen, who halted the program in February days before it was to accept its first applications. “Hence, my prediction to you is that the Supreme Court will reject the Obama administration’s appeal to the Supreme Court, we will go back to the lower court and fully litigate this case, and so the big-term effect of this is that the likelihood of this order going into effect and being applied during the Obama administration is very minuscule,” Mr. Abbott said. Texas and 25 other states are suing over Mr. Obama’s Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) program, announced in November 2014, that would shield millions of additional illegal immigrants from the threat of deportation, as well as Mr. Obama’s announced expansion of his 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The rulings don’t affect the original 2012 DACA program that covers so-called Dreamers, or young illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/27/greg-abbott-minuscule-likelihood-obama-immigration/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
SEIU Draws Battle Lines Over Immigration Order: This Is Not Over
“The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Tuesday condemned an appeals court decision to uphold a block on President Barack Obama’s amnesty. “Once again, we find ourselves in a battle to preserve the hope of millions of families who have long made America their home,” SEIU International Executive Vice President Rocio Sáenz said in a statement. “We have no doubt that the deferred action initiatives will prevail.” May 19 was originally supposed to be the first day illegal immigrants could apply for deportation relief and work authorization under the president’s executive order, but a federal district court in Texas granted a preliminary injunction in February that temporarily blocked the order. At the time, several prominent unions, led by the AFL-CIO, rallied against that decision. On Tuesday, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled against a request to lift the block…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/27/seiu-draws-battle-lines-over-immigration-order-this-is-not-over/
Why the Fifth Circuit Smacked Down Obama’s Immigration Appeal
Can Texas show that it would be harmed by amnesty? Hell yes!
“Once again, President Obama’s unlawful amnesty push has suffered a legal blow, this time from a higher court. Yesterday the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Obama administration’s request to lift a district-court injunction against its DACA and DAPA amnesty programs. The programs will now be kept frozen until a full hearing on the merits can be held. Because it will be well into campaign season by the time this takes place, the immigration issue should again play a prominent role in this coming cycle. Crucially for immigration-enforcement advocates, the Fifth Circuit smacked down the president’s attorneys for arguing that Texas had no “legal standing” to challenge the president’s amnesty programs. Although obtaining standing to challenge the non-enforcement of our immigration laws has been a perennial problem for the public, Texas did a masterly job of structuring and arguing its case. To show it had standing, Texas claimed it had suffered a direct injury from the president’s executive actions — namely, that it would have to issue driver’s licenses to the state’s 500,000 amnesty beneficiaries, at a substantial loss to state coffers. Although losses could theoretically be made up from increased application fees, the court followed a previous Fifth Circuit decision that held that forcing a state to choose between incurring costs and changing a law (like one that administers a state program) is an unfair ultimatum and an injury in itself. RELATED: The Bogus Legal Case for Obama’s Amnesty As an aside, interestingly, the court took the time to note that there was “confusion” surrounding the term “illegal alien.” Quoting a “leading legal lexicographer,” the court said that the term is more accurate than “undocumented immigrant” (the term that open-borders pushers have tried to inject into the lexicon for years), as illegal aliens’ “entry into the country” is certainly illegal under the law…”
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418933/why-fifth-circuit-smacked-down-obamas-immigration-appeal-ian-smith
Why that new immigration decision could be bad news for Republicans
“It’s been less than 24 hours since a federal appeals court blocked the Obama Administration’s plan to offer an estimated 4 million undocumented immigrants some relief from the threat of deportation. Since then, the decision has largely been discussed as a blow to immigrant groups, a restraint on Obama’s executive authority and, most often, another potential setback to his legacy. But there are at least 20 men and women vying for the Republican nomination in 2016 who now face an almost certain onslaught of questions about precisely where they stand on the nation’s existing immigration policy. Democratic contenders face some of the same questions, but for Republicans, immigration is a kind of vice in which they can’t help but be squeezed. The party’s conservative, mostly white and older base, wants to know whether the candidates support a path to citizenship, which it largely opposes as a form of “amnesty.” Latino voters, the nation’s fastest growing racial group with which Republicans must make inroads, overwhelmingly supported Obama’s immigration plans. And polls show Americans as a whole tend to favor comprehensive immigration reform proposals that include a path to citizenship. Immigrant advocacy groups are tracking the GOP candidates’ positions closely and making their findings readily available to the public. And pleasing all of these groups at once will be hard, if not impossible. So the more this issue is current and requires candidates to take positions, the worse for the GOP field. A March Washington Post/ABC News poll found that while a slight majority (51 percent) prefer a president who supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, a full 45 percent would not. When pollsters dug deeper, they found that a full 70 percent of Republicans prefer a candidate who opposes a path to citizenship, and only 24 percent see things the other way. Democrats were almost a mirror image of Republicans, with a full 68 percent describing themselves as interested in a candidate who would support a path to citizenship, while 28 percent said they would not….”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/05/27/why-that-new-immigration-decision-could-be-bad-news-for-republicans/?wprss=rss_national
Area illegal immigrants remain in limbo as court blocks relief plan
“Amalia Mendez, a housekeeper and mother of four from Guatemala, has been hanging many hopes on President Obama’s executive action last November that would defer deportation for up to 5 million people like herself. Now, with a federal court ruling Tuesday putting that program in limbo for the forseeable future, she is putting those hopes on hold. “I would be able to earn more if I had papers, and so would my husband. We could get insurance and a nicer home for our children. Most important is that we would not have to be afraid every time we leave the house,” Mendez, 41, said Wednesday, speaking in Spanish. “I am sad about this news, but I am not giving up hope. If I get deported, I don’t even want to think about what would happen to my children.” Mendez, a longtime resident of Falls Church, Va., is one of an estimated 180,000 to 200,000 illegal immigrants in the greater Washington region who would be eligible to apply for deportation relief under the President’s executive action last year. Most of those are the parents of U.S.-born children, and some are younger illegal immigrants who meet certain age limits and other criteria. Since November, when Obama announced the actions, a number of legal aid and immigrant advocacy groups in the region have been urging potential applicants — mostly from Mexico and Central America — to collect their tax returns, rent receipts, children’s birth certificates, police records and other evidence to prove they are eligible. On Wednesday, officials of several such groups said they were disappointed but not surprised by the court ruling. They said they have confidence the president’s action will eventually be approved, but they acknowledged that the court decision would cause a lengthy delay, possibly until after Obama’s term expires in 2017, while tens of thousands of area immigrants would remain vulnerable to deportation….”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/illegal-immigrants-remain-in-limbo-as-court-blocks-relief-plan/2015/05/27/10ae80d0-0482-11e5-bc72-f3e16bf50bb6_story.html?wprss=rss_national
Legal setback clouds fate of Obama’s immigration actions
“The fate of President Obama’s controversial deportation-relief program has been thrown into question following a legal setback that has pro-immigration groups increasingly nervous. In a split decision earlier this week, a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals handed a victory to Obama’s opponents when it refused to lift a hold on his executive actions, which could allow millions of immigrants in the country illegally to live and work in the U.S. without fear of deportation. The decision made it more likely the court battle will spill into 2016, the final year of Obama’s presidency. “I think it’s a real concern that this litigation delay is going to be protracted and that this could very well push into next year,” said Marshall Fitz, vice president of immigration policy at the Center for American Progress, which has close ties to Obama. In a sign that the administration is now resigned to a lengthy legal battle, the Justice Department announced Wednesday it would not make an emergency request to the Supreme Court to lift the hold on his order. The DOJ is instead choosing to focus on its appeal of the injunction itself, a proceeding not expected at the 5th Circuit until July. Advocates say remain confident the Obama administration will eventually prevail in a series of legal challenges related to a lawsuit brought by 26 states against the programs. But they worry the longer the fight drags out, the harder it might be to convince immigrants to sign up for the programs. Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, said the intent of the legal challenge is to “delay, confuse and instill fear in our communities.” She said groups would continue to encourage eligible immigrants to prepare to apply for the programs, but the court case makes that task tougher. If uncertainty continues to surround the program, it may be difficult to convince immigrants to come out of the shadows and hand over their personal information to the government. “We acknowledge it will be harder challenge for us to make sure that our communities are well informed,” she said. Not all immigration watchers agree. David Leopold, the former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, believes potential applicants won’t be deterred by the legal wrangling because the benefits are enormous for immigrant families. “This delay is not a welcome delay but I don’t think it’s going to discourage people from applying at all,” he said. “People who have been living in this country for 10, 15 years are not about to give up and leave.”…”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/243261-legal-setback-clouds-fate-of-obamas-immigration-actions
Obama won’t take immigration appeal to the Supreme Court
“The Department of Justice said Wednesday it will not make an emergency request to the Supreme Court to lift an order blocking President Obama’s immigration program. Instead, it will focus on the appeal of the injunction itself at the Fifth Circuit, which is expected to proceed in July. “The Department has determined that it will not seek a stay from the Supreme Court,” Justice Department spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said. Rodenbush said the “best way” to win the case is “to focus on the ongoing appeal on the merits of the preliminary injunction itself. That appeal has been proceeding on an expedited basis, and the Fifth Circuit is expected to hear argument the week of July 6.”…”
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/243253-justice-dept-wont-seek-stay-for-immigration-ruling
Immigration ruling won’t go to Supreme Court — yet
“President Obama’s executive actions on immigration may yet end up in the Supreme Court, but the Justice Department said Wednesday it would first argue the merits of the case in an appeals court in July. The Justice Department’s announcement means that it will allow a temporary injunction to stay in place while the administration defends Obama’s immigration policies in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. In a 2-1 ruling Tuesday, that same court declined to stay a lower court ruling that blocks the Obama administration from taking applications for legal status from undocumented immigrants. Instead, a Justice Department spokesman said, the Obama administration will focus on defending the immigration policies on the merits. “The Department of Justice is committed to taking steps that will resolve the immigration litigation as quickly as possible in order to bring greater accountability to our immigration system by prioritizing deporting the worst offenders, not people who have long ties to the United States and who are raising American children,” said Justice Department spokesman Patrick Rodenbush. The best way to do that, he said, is to argue the merits of the case in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals the week of July 6. The lawsuit was brought by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and 25 other Republican governors who say their states will be forced to provide services like driver’s licenses to the newly legalized immigrants. They convinced U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen to halt the program in February. The Justice Department appealed that ruling, arguing that the policies should go forward while the lawsuit continues. The appeals court Tuesday’s refused to grant that request…”
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/05/27/immigration-ruling-justice-department-response/28027903/
Obama administration will not seek Supreme Court stay on immigration block
“Despite a setback to President Barack Obama’s immigration action in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday, the U.S. Justice Department will not ask the Supreme Court to stay the injunction, a Department spokesman said. Twenty-six states blocked the launch of the executive action, estimated to provide relief from deportation to 4.7 million undocumented immigrants, in a ruling first decided by a Texas District judge in February. The Fifth Circuit will hear an appeal to the injunction in July…”
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/27/us-usa-immigration-court-idUSKBN0OC2OO20150527
Obama administration won’t seek emergency stay from Supreme Court on immigration injunction
“The Obama administration announced Wednesday that it will not seek an emergency stay from the Supreme Court to immediately lift an injunction on President Obama’s deferred action program for undocumented immigrants. Instead, the Department of Justice will focus on an appeals court hearing in July aimed at overturning the injunction in hopes of scoring a clearer victory that could allow the program to go forward, officials said. The decision on strategy came one day after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit refused to stay a lower court’s injunction, delivering a setback to a core provision of Obama’s immigration agenda. Last fall, the president announced executive action plans to protect as many as 5 million immigrants from deportation and provide them work permits. But Texas and 25 other states sued the administration, and federal Judge Andrew Hanen in Brownsville, Tex., ordered in February that the new deferred action program could not be implemented until he rules on the lawsuit. Obama administration officials said they will focus on a July 6 hearing in the 5th Circuit aimed at overturning Hanen’s injunction. They said they are choosing not to pursue an emergency stay from the Supreme Court because even if they were successful, many undocumented immigrants would remain wary of enrolling in the deferred action program with the appeal of Hanen’s ruling still undecided by the 5th Circuit. The Justice Department believes the best strategy is “to focus on the ongoing appeal on the merits of the preliminary injunction itself,” said Patrick Rodenbush, a spokesman for the agency. The administration officials noted that they have asked the 5th Circuit for an expedited decision in their appeal of Hanen’s ruling. In its decision not to stay Hanen’s injunction, a three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit ruled 2 to 1 that the Obama administration would be unlikely to prevail on the merits of its appeal…”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/05/27/obama-administration-wont-seek-emergency-stay-from-supreme-court-on-immigration-injunction/?wprss=rss_politics
US won’t seek high court review in immigration case
“The government says it won’t ask the Supreme Court to review a judge’s decision that put on hold President Barack Obama’s executive action on immigration. The Justice Department announcement on Wednesday came one day after a federal appeals court panel refused to stay a Texas judge’s injunction that kept the sweeping immigration plan from taking effect. Spokesman Patrick Rodenbush said the Justice Department is instead focused on its appeal that will be argued the week of July 6 before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The plan would shield as many as 5 million immigrants living in the U.S. from deportation, but it remains on hold after the appeals court panel refused to allow it to take effect immediately…”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/27/us-wont-seek-high-court-review-in-immigration-case/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
US won’t seek high court review in immigration case
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/27/us-wont-seek-high-court-review-in-immigration-case/
Obama Won’t Take Immigration Battle Directly to Supreme Court
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/us/obama-immigration-executive-action-supreme-court.html?_r=0
Hillary Clinton: Appeals court ‘wrong’ on immigration
“Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton took to social media Wednesday to blast a federal appellate court’s declining on Tuesday to lift an injunction against President Obama’s executive actions on immigration. “5th Circuit is wrong on immigration. @POTUS followed precedent, took steps for families when GOP House wouldn’t. Must continue the fight. -H,” Mrs. Clintontweeted Wednesday morning. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, whose state is part of the lawsuit against Mr. Obama’s actions the president announced in November to shield millions of additional illegal immigrants from the threat of deportation, predicted Wednesday on Fox News that the case would be tied up in the courts to the point that it would be unlikely for the actions to take effect while Mr. Obama was in office. But Mrs. Clinton, the 2016 Democratic presidential front-runner, has said that if elected she would try to go even further than Mr. Obama has on the issue….”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/may/27/hillary-clinton-appeals-court-wrong-on-immigration/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS
Hillary Clinton Is ‘Adamantly Against Illegal Immigrants,’ Except When She Isn’t
“Her Majesty’s Twitter feed is a lot of fun. She’s got some great pics of a poorly constructed android attempting to smile at humans, she’s running a contest where the “winner” gets to meet her, and, most importantly, she expresses her most heartfelt opinions on the issues of the day…”
http://dailycaller.com/2015/05/27/hillary-clinton-is-adamantly-against-illegal-immigrants-except-when-she-isnt/
DESPITE COURT SETBACK REP. GUTIÉRREZ REMAINS CONFIDENT OF EXEC. AMNESTY SUCCESS
“One of the most vocal advocates for amnesty says he remains confident that illegal immigrants will one day be able to benefit from President Obama’s executive actions, despite the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ refusal to lift a lower court’s injunction on the programs. “It is disappointing but not unexpected given the make-up of the Fifth Circuit and the panel hearing this preliminary case. I am confident millions of immigrants will eventually apply for DAPA and DACA, because the law is undeniably on the President’s side, as is public opinion,” Rep. Luis V. Gutiérrez (D-IL) said following the three-judge panel’s 2-1 ruling against lifting the injunction. The Tuesday ruling means that U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen’s hold on Obama’s executive amnesty programs — the expansion of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) — will remain in place. Gutiérrez noted that, despite the defeat, he and other Democrats will continue work ensure illegal immigrants are ready when the executive amnesty programs are allowed to move forward. “Meanwhile, I continue to work with Democrats and others who are preparing immigrant communities for the application process once the legal maneuvering is resolved and the courts reject the arguments of the Republican Governors and Attorneys General,” he said. “The longer the court process takes, the harder it is to imagine a Republican candidate remains competitive in a bid for the White House, because increasingly, this will be the defining and decisive 2016 campaign issue,” Gutiérrez added….”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/27/despite-court-setback-rep-gutierrez-remains-confident-of-exec-amnesty-success/
Illegal-immigration slowdown changes dynamics of border-security debate
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flow-of-illegal-immigration-slows-as-us-mexico-border-dynamics-evolve/2015/05/27/c5caf02c-006b-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html?wprss=rss_politics
Group: Illegal immigration halved, from 68,000 to expected 30,000
“A crackdown on children attempting to illegally enter the United States by Mexico and other Latin American nations has cut this year’s surge to a still-high 30,000, but proponents believe that has made the situation even more desperate for kids, leading to greater crime and deaths. “Those that are fleeing and trying to get out of their countries are now using even more dangerous tactics with more criminal entities and costing them even more money to get through to safety,” said Kimberly Haynes, director of children’s services for Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service. So far, the numbers of illegals crossing into the United States have been about half of last year’s numbers. Haynes said that while about 68,000 unaccompanied children crossed the border last year, current numbers suggest a total of about 30,000 this year. But at 30,000, it is still very high and equal to fiscal 2013’s numbers. Baltimore-based LIRS is a key player in caring for unaccompanied children crossing into the United States and advocates for joining the kids with their parents already in the United States. Haynes told Secrets that those they have interviewed this year arrive with horrible stories of how smugglers got them through Mexico and into the United States. Worse, she said, many arrive minus a brother or sister, believed to have died in the process…”
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/group-illegal-immigration-halved-from-68000-to-expected-30000/article/2565085?custom_click=rss
Democrats Urge End to Detention of I