By Constitution Staff

On August 12, U.S. District Judge Ronald White rejected the government's motion to dismiss the case against the Affordable Care Act filed by Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. The decision was issued in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma in Muskogee. Judge White rejected the federal government contention that Pruitt lacked legal standing to challenge an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule. The court's ruling was a victory for Oklahomans and the rest of the nation in dismantling the President's health care law.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt recently testified before Congress, explaining the details of Oklahoma's lawsuit against the IRS and its implementation of the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as ObamaCare. The House subcommittee on Energy Policy, Health Care and Entitlements heard testimony from various experts, including Pruitt, challenging actions of the IRS and other federal agencies in their implementation of ObamaCare. These experts claimed that many of these actions simply do not comply with the health care law, as it was passed by Congress in 2010.

"The IRS does not have the authority to expand access to subsidies (nor levy penalties) beyond what is clearly written in the law," Pruitt testified. "These issues are of great importance to the State of Oklahoma because we value our state's economic stability and growth, and the rule of law."

"Our fight continues on behalf of Oklahoma citizens to confront the administration when it seeks to overreach its authority and circumvent the law." Pruitt continued. "We hope to obtain relief in this matter through the courts, but we also welcome Congressional oversight being brought to bear on these agencies."

The importance of Oklahoma's lawsuit is that should Pruitt and Oklahoma prevail, Oklahoma along with 33 other states which chose not to set up health care exchanges, can then also choose not to be part of the federal health care exchanges. While the law itself would still stand, due to Supreme Court Chief Justice John Robert's unfortunate tortured reasoning in National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius, "the resulting lack of funds could make ObamaCare's financial structure untenable," according to National Review Online.

Former FOX News analyst Dick Morris said, "The IRS has ruled that the language of the statute should be interpreted to extend the subsidies to those enrolled in state or federal exchanges, but that's not what the law says. Section 1041 of the act, according to the article [published in the Case Western Reserve School of Law Journal] authorizes premium-assistance tax credits and makes them available only through state-run exchanges."

Morris explained that the law also says that tax credits can be given only if the taxpayer has a plan that was enrolled in through the exchange established by the state under section 1311 of the Affordable Care Act. Jonathan Adler, professor of law at Case Western Reserve University, did the research for the article, and he testified along with Attorney General Pruitt before Congress. Adler argued that the provision only applies to exchanges established by a state and established under Section 1311.

IRS Director Douglas Schulmann retorted that the statute "includes language" that indicates that individuals are eligible for tax credits "whether they are enrolled through a state-based exchange or a federally-facilitated exchange."

Morris said that the law "implies no such thing. It is not only silent on any subsidies for federal exchange, it is clear that the subsidies were intended to encourage states to set up exchanges."

The Affordable Care Act requires that any fines or penalties apply only to individuals or companies that are eligible to receive the tax credits and subsidies. "If a state chooses not to set up an exchange of its own, residents of that state are not eligible to receive tax credits or subsidies for buying insurance, so there can also be no fines or penalties for not buying insurance, even if there is a federally run exchange in the state," argued National Review Online, concluding, "In other words, the individual and employer mandates are nullified in that state."

The political impact, should Pruitt's lawsuit prove successful, is huge. Pruitt is regarded as a likely candidate to succeed Senator Tom Coburn, who is not running for reelection in 2016. A Senator Scott Pruitt responsible for putting the stake in the heart of the unpopular government takeover of health care would be an immediate national star.