The biggest health insurance companies are taking the lead in suing to stop the Affordable Care Act from taking effect, filing an amicus brief in a legal challenge to President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to repeal it.
The companies are seeking a permanent injunction against Trump’s order, which would prevent states from implementing it, and an injunction against a second, narrower version of it.
This second injunction would allow states to roll back parts of the Affordable Health Care Act, but it would require the states to make some exceptions.
That is because the first version of the injunction, which was approved by the U,S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, is narrower than the second, which is expected to be approved by a larger panel of the Supreme Court.
The health insurance industry’s brief argues that the second injunction could be more narrow because it would prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions.
That means the insurance companies’ case will be stronger in court, because it will likely have the more substantial effect on health insurance markets, the industry’s lawyers say.
“The companies are trying to use the Supreme Courts’ ruling against President Trump to try to keep the ACA alive,” said Larry Levitt, a senior fellow at the Kaiser Family Foundation and the co-author of “How Trump Won.”
The filing, which comes in the final days of a four-week-long legal fight, comes as the White House and the health insurance groups are preparing to announce plans to undo parts of Trump’s first executive order, the first since taking office in January.
The Trump administration says the two lawsuits are overblown.
“There is nothing about the second version of TrumpCare that would allow insurers to deny coverage to anyone,” said White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders in a statement.
The Supreme Court is also expected to rule soon on a case filed by the American Hospital Association against Trump and the Department of Health and Human Services.
The hospital group said in a letter to Trump that it will “be in the process of reviewing and evaluating its legal options with respect to the President’s latest Executive Order, and will have no further comment until we receive a response.”
The health insurers’ brief argues the order would prevent the states from expanding Medicaid, which allows low-income people to get health care through government programs such as Medicare, and would allow insurance companies to charge higher premiums to people who are insured through an employer.
The lawsuit is based on the TrumpCare Act, which has been in effect since 2013, and the Affordable Healthcare Act, signed by President Barack Obama in 2010.
It would be the first legal challenge against the ACA since a lawsuit challenging it in 2015 by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, which sued the president.
The brief, filed Monday by the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, says the second order “would not even allow the States to take steps to limit coverage to individuals with pre the ACA and pre-ACA pre-complications.
It prohibits the States from providing any waivers to states to allow them to implement the second phase of the order.”
The companies argue that if the two different versions of the injunctions were to go to trial, they would likely prevail, because the Supreme and Ninth Circuits are different.
The Ninth Circuit in July allowed a lawsuit against the Obama administration to proceed, saying it was based on federal law and did not need to be decided by the Supreme.
The case was decided in favor of the Trump administration, but the Ninth Circuit upheld that ruling in 2018.
The second injunction “is clearly a narrower version,” said Steven Davis, a lawyer with the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, a trade group.
The Second Circuit ruled in June that the government cannot block a state from implementing the ACA.
“It’s like saying if a city bans smoking, it can’t stop smoking,” Davis said.
“But the city doesn’t have to be an urban center.
They can ban all things that might lead to health problems.
The court can’t say, ‘You can’t ban everything.'”
The two companies say that the Supreme court’s ruling against the second executive order would allow them “to challenge any law in a state that is inconsistent with the Second Circuit’s ruling.”
They also argue that the president’s order violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, which says the executive branch “shall not interfere with or impair the fundamental right of the people to pursue happiness.”
That means “a state may enact a law in any manner that the court finds inconsistent with, or contrary to, the constitutional rights of a citizen.”
“If states are able to use their power to block the implementation of the ACA by refusing to enforce the law, the courts will have a strong tool to enforce constitutional rights,” said Robert Bork, a conservative lawyer who has served as solicitor general for the past five years.
“States can make the case