tated Exchange] more difficult or onerous run afoul of the ACA’s purpose
and are subject to preemption.”
103 Notably, the court was more concerned
by other significant restrictions on consumer assisters.
104 For example, the
court enjoined a state provision that made it illegal for a consumer assister
who is not licensed as an insurance agent to provide advice about the features of a particular health plan, because the ACA specifically requires consumer assisters to provide this information.
105 From the beginning of the
opinion and repeatedly thereafter, the court notes that Missouri could have
operated a state Exchange but decided not to do so.
106 Rather, it made the
decision to allow the federal government to operate the Exchange and regulate the assister programs.
107 The court concluded, “any attempt by Missouri
to regulate the conduct of those working on behalf of the FFE is preempted.”
President Obama signing the ACA into law in March 2010 ignited a liti-
gation conflagration. More than a hundred cases have been filed; scores,
decided—often in conflicting ways by the appellate courts. The Supreme
Court has decided that the ACA is constitutional; however, it is currently
reviewing whether for-profit corporations and their owners have religious
liberties and whether the ACA violates those rights. Plaintiffs’ aggressive
use of the courts to attack the ACA will almost certainly mean that the Su-
preme Court will be asked to consider other ACA provisions. While high
school civics teaches that laws are enacted, amended, and repealed by the
legislative branch of government, the ACA is providing a different lesson
as hundreds of plaintiffs are using the judicial branch of government in their
efforts to repeal the ACA in whole or in part. Only recently have individu-
als begun to ask courts to enforce provisions of the ACA so that they can
obtain the benefits of the law.
103. Id. at 3.
104. Id. at 6.
106. Id. at 2.
108. Id. at 7.