**Lawsuit Targets Biden's Overreach on Healthcare for Illegals**
In a bold legal move, a coalition of 15 states led by Kansas has filed a lawsuit aiming to block a recent rule from the Biden-Harris administration that would extend taxpayer-funded healthcare to illegal immigrants through the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Attorney General Kris Kobach, representing the states, asserts that the federal government's action is not only illegal but an undue financial burden on hard-working American taxpayers.
At the heart of the lawsuit is a new rule issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which expands the definition of individuals “lawfully present” in the U.S. to include those recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). This controversial change would make DACA recipients eligible for federal healthcare benefits, a move that many believe circumvents existing laws designed to protect taxpayer interests.
Kobach and his colleagues argue that this rule blatantly violates the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, which restricts access to public benefits for certain qualified aliens. The lawsuit contends that DACA recipients are, by definition, unlawfully present in the country and therefore ineligible for taxpayer-funded healthcare.
In their complaint, the state attorneys general assert that allowing illegal immigrants access to ACA benefits not only contradicts federal law but also imposes significant administrative and financial burdens on state-run healthcare systems. They argue that making approximately 200,000 DACA recipients newly eligible for ACA would lead to unsustainable costs for states, undermining the healthcare system that Americans rely on.
Critics of the Biden administration’s approach highlight that this rule represents a significant overreach of executive power. The plaintiffs accuse the administration of attempting to bypass Congress in providing benefits to individuals who are not entitled to them under existing law.
As this lawsuit unfolds, it underscores the increasing tension between state and federal authorities over immigration policy and the use of taxpayer dollars. With implications that could stretch far beyond this case, the outcome may set critical precedents for how federal programs are administered in conjunction with immigration status.
The states involved in the lawsuit are standing firm against what they describe as a reckless expansion of government authority that disregards the rule of law. As debate over immigration and healthcare access continues, this legal challenge reflects a growing movement among states to push back against federal overreach and protect the interests of their citizens.
Conservatives will be keeping a close eye on how this case develops, especially as legal experts anticipate that it may eventually reach the Supreme Court, potentially reshaping the landscape of both immigration policy and public health benefits in America.
Sources:
fox5atlanta.comreclaimthenet.orgtrendingpoliticsnews.com