Regan v. Denney
| Decision Date | 05 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 46545 |
| Citation | 165 Idaho 15,437 P.3d 15 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Brent REGAN, a qualified elector of the State of Idaho, Petitioner, v. Lawerence DENNEY, Secretary of State of the State of Idaho, in his official capacity, Respondent. Deleena Foster, an individual, Pamela Blessinger, an individual, Bruce Belzer, MD, an individual, and the Idaho Medical Association, Inc., an Idaho non-profit corporation, Intervenors-Respondents. |
Bryan D. Smith, Idaho Falls, argued for petitioner.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Idaho Attorney General, Boise, for petitioner. Brian P. Kane argued.
Givens Pursley, Boise, for Intervenors. Kenneth R. McClure argued.
Petitioner Brent Regan asserts that Idaho Code section 56-267, a statute enacted pursuant to the initiative power retained by the people of Idaho in Article III, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution, violates Idaho's Constitution by delegating future lawmaking authority regarding Medicaid expansion to the federal government. Regan requests that this Court declare section 56-267 unconstitutional and also requests that this Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the Secretary of State Lawerence Denney to remove section 56-267 from the Idaho Code. We dismiss Regan's petition and deny his request for a writ of mandamus.
In the November 6, 2018 election, the Idaho electorate passed a ballot initiative, known as Proposition 2, to expand Medicaid eligibility in Idaho. On November 20, 2018, the Acting Governor issued a proclamation that Proposition 2 had passed, and subsequently the Idaho Code was amended to add section 56-267 which reads as follows:
A brief discussion of Medicaid history is helpful to understanding the genesis of Proposition 2. The Medicaid program was established in 1965 to provide medical care to indigent people as well as people " ‘whose income and resources are insufficient to meet the costs of necessary medical services’ including nursing home care." Stafford v. Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare , 145 Idaho 530, 533–34, 181 P.3d 456, 459–60 (2008) (quoting Cleary v. Waldman , 167 F.3d 801, 805 (3rd Cir.1999) ).
The Medicaid program is administered by the states on a matching-fund basis, with the lion's share of support coming from the federal government. The states do not get the matching funds without strings. As one might suspect, the states must meet certain requirements in order to obtain the federal funds. Medicaid is a cooperative federal-state venture through with [sic] the states operate programs of their own design. These programs must, however, be consistent with federal standards and regulations.
Id. at 534, 181 P.3d at 460 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
When the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was enacted by Congress in 2010, it contained a requirement that, in order to keep existing Medicaid funding, states had to expand Medicaid "to cover all individuals under the age of 65 with incomes below 133 percent of the federal poverty line." Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius , 567 U.S. 519, 576, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012) (emphasis in original). This would have significantly changed Medicaid, as the existing "Medicaid program offer[ed] federal funding to States to assist pregnant women, children, needy families, the blind, the elderly, and the disabled in obtaining medical care." Id. at 519, 132 S.Ct. 2566 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a) ). Idaho joined with twenty-five other states to challenge the mandatory provision. Id. at 520, 132 S.Ct. 2566. In its Sebelius decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the provision in the ACA that required states to expand Medicaid was unconstitutional, but held that states could voluntarily expand Medicaid. Id. at 587, 132 S.Ct. 2566. The ACA also created a system of insurance subsidies for individuals with household incomes of 100 percent to 400 percent of the federal poverty line, which was not affected by the Court's decision in Sebelius . Thus, after the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Sebelius struck down the mandatory Medicaid expansion in the ACA, there existed a "Medicaid gap" for people who did not qualify for existing Medicaid, but also did not have an income of at least 100% of the federal poverty level so as to qualify for insurance subsidies. People in the "gap" were left with no affordable healthcare options.
Proposition 2, now Idaho Code section 56-267, expands Medicaid eligibility in Idaho to cover Idaho citizens who fall in the "Medicaid gap" by expanding coverage in Idaho to citizens who are under 65 years of age, whose modified adjusted gross income is 133% of the federal poverty level or below, and who are not otherwise eligible for Medicaid coverage under the existing state plan. Section 56-267 directs the Department of Health and Welfare (the Department) to submit the necessary amendments to the state Medicaid plan to the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. I.C. § 56-267. Section 56-267 directs the Department to do this within 90 days after approval of the act. Id.
On November 21, 2018, after section 56-267 had become law, Petitioner Brent Regan filed a "Petition for Review" with this Court, seeking a declaration that section 56-267 is unconstitutional. Regan contends section 56-267 is unconstitutional because it delegates future lawmaking authority to the federal government. Regan's argument is centered on the portion of section 56-267 which extends Medicaid coverage "in accordance with sections 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) and 1902(e)(14) of the Social Security Act." Regan contends that the federal government could change provisions in those sections of the Social Security Act, and that Idaho would be bound by such changes. Thus, Regan contends section 56-267 unconstitutionally delegates future lawmaking authority to the federal government.
The Idaho Constitution and Idaho Code grant this Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus. Idaho Const. art. V, § 9 ; I.C. § 1-203. Under the Idaho Appellate Rules, "[a]ny person may apply to the Supreme Court for the issuance of any extraordinary writ or other proceeding over which the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction." I.A.R. 5(a). Such writs "may be issued ... to compel the performance of an act which the law especially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust or station; or to compel the admission of a party to the use and the enjoyment of a right or office to which he is entitled, and from which he is unlawfully precluded by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board or person." I.C. § 7-302.
Leavitt v. Craven , 154 Idaho 661, 665, 302 P.3d 1, 5 (2012).
"Because ‘constitutional questions and questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law,’ this Court exercises free review over both." Id. (quoting Stuart v. State , 149 Idaho 35, 40, 232 P.3d 813, 818 (2010) ). In cases challenging the constitutionality of a statute:
Id. (quoting Stuart , 149 Idaho at 40, 232 P.3d at 818 ).
Regan contends that this Court "is the proper forum for review" based on Idaho Code section 34-1809(4). Regan also argues this Court has jurisdiction over the matter because Regan is seeking an order to have Denney remove section 56-267 from the Idaho Code. Denney maintains that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the petition, and contends Idaho Code section 34-1809(4) cannot expand the Court's original jurisdiction set by the Constitution. Intervenors contend Regan lacks standing to bring his controversy before this Court. For reasons to be discussed, we will exercise our original jurisdiction under Article V, section 9 of the Idaho Constitution.
Section 34-1809(4) provides that, "[a]ny qualified elector of the state of Idaho may, at any time after the attorney general has issued a certificate of review, bring an action in the [S]upreme [C]ourt to determine the constitutionality of any initiative." However, section 34-1809(4) unconstitutionally attempts to broaden this Court's jurisdiction. "The principle that neither the legislature nor the executive can in any way regulate or alter the Supreme Court's jurisdiction is basic to the doctrine of separation of powers." Mead v. Arnell , 117 Idaho 660, 663, 791 P.2d 410, 413 (1990) (citing Idaho Const. art. II, § 1 )....
To continue reading
Request your trial