Thursday, October 31, 2013

1851 Center for Constitutional Law Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
October 31, 2013

MEDIA CONTACT
Maurice A . Thompson
MThompson@OhioConstitution.org
(614) 340-9817

 
High Court to Hear Medicaid Expansion Lawsuit on Expedited Basis
Columbus, OH - The Ohio Supreme Court today granted the 1851 Center's Motion to Expedite its lawsuit challenging administrative Obamacare Medicaid Expansion in Ohio, setting a briefing schedule that will have the merits of the case submitted to the Court by no later than December 1.
 
The Motion granted asserts that the action is likely to prevail, and that dire budgetary consequences could ensue should the case not be decided prior to January 1, 2014.
 
The October 22 legal action is filed on behalf of State Representatives Matt Lynch, Ron Young, Andy Thompson, Ron Maag, John Becker, and Ron Hood, and Cleveland Right to Life and Right to Life of Greater Cincinnati. These representatives and groups combine to represent nearly 1 million Ohioans.
 
The action asserts that in accepting jurisdiction over and passing the Governor's proposed Medicaid spending, the Controlling Board exceeded its legal authority by acting inconsistently with the intent of the Ohio General Assembly. Specifically:
  • R.C. 127.17 states: "The Controlling Board shall take no action which does not carry out the legislative intent of the general assembly regarding program goals and levels of support of state agencies as expressed in the prevailing appropriation acts of the general assembly."
  • The Ohio General Assembly first removed Governor Kasich's proposed expansion of Medicaid spending from the state budget bill, and then inserted a prohibition against the expansion and spending.
  • Article II of the Ohio Constitution requires that the legislature, rather than administrative boards such as the Controlling Board, make major policy decisions.
  • In a 1980 challenge to the Controlling Board, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the Controlling Board's authority is only constitutional because it must adhere to the intentions of the General Assembly, and because of "the availability of mandamus relief" through the High Court.
Read the Complaint HERE.

No comments: