“After the change in administration, the Justice Department reconsidered the government’s position,” Deputy Attorney General Edwin Kneedler told the court in a letter on Wednesday. The United States “no longer adheres to the conclusions” in a document presented by the Trump administration.
Kneedler said the federal government now claims that the individual mandate is constitutional, but even if the court disagrees, it must separate the mandate and allow the rest of the extended law to remain. Such a move would maintain the status quo, since the penalty associated with the mandate has been reduced to zero.
The case was discussed on November 10 and is currently before the ministers, with a decision scheduled for July.
The letter marks one of the most substantive twists that the Biden government has made, but it does not mean that the case will go away. It was originally introduced by Republican attorney generals, and the Trump administration later joined.
Contesters argue that the law’s individual mandate is unconstitutional and that all other provisions of the extensive 900-page law should fall with it. California, along with other Democratic-led states, as well as the House of Representatives, supports the law and has asked judges to put it into effect.
The action involves a measure taken by Congress in 2017 to reduce the penalty to those who were uninsured as part of the year-end tax review to zero. Critics rushed to court arguing that the Federal Supreme Court in 2012 had kept the law under Congress’ taxing power, so since the mandate is no longer tied to a specific tax fine, it has lost its legal protection.
This story has been updated with additional context.