This overview is excerpted from Manatt on Health, Manatt’s subscription service that provides in-depth insights and analysis focused on the legal, policy and market developments.
On August 8, a coalition of 15 state attorneys general1 sued CMS in the North Dakota federal court seeking to overturn a May 2024 CMS final rule making Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients eligible for premium tax credits on the Marketplace.
The plaintiff states argue that this rule exceeds CMS’ statutory authority, and further, that CMS failed to adequately consider the costs this rule places on states by allegedly encouraging DACA recipients to remain in the United States. The states “suffer fiscal costs through the continued presence of DACA recipients in their respective jurisdictions,” they argue, such as costs associated with issuing driver’s licenses or enrolling children in public schools. Although the complaint does not cite the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright, this case will be reviewed under the updated legal framework established by that case, in which courts generally do not afford deference to agency interpretations of federal statutes.
1 The 15 plaintiff states are Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Virginia.
