Court Dismisses Consumer Group Challenge to DRA

WASHINGTON–A lawsuit protesting the Deficit Reduction Act’s
constitutionality was dismissed in U.S. district court
Wednesday.

Public Citizen, a consumer watchdog group, filed the suit in
March, claiming the law was invalid because the version passed by
the House of Representatives was different from the version passed
by the Senate and signed by the president (see HomeCare, March 27).

The DRA cuts spending for Medicare, Medicaid and other mandatory
programs by $38.8 billion over five years, including a provision
that caps Medicare rental of oxygen equipment at 36 months and
rental of other DME at 13 months.

As the legislation was passed back and forth between the House
and Senate last year, a typo involving the DME rental cap was
inserted into the House version. The Senate passed a version of the
bill without the typo, which was then signed by the president.
Under the constitution, bills passed by both chambers should be
identical.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed
Public Citizen’s lawsuit, citing the “enrolled bill rule” in the
1892 court case Marshall Field v. Clark. Under the rule, the
signatures of the Speaker of the House, the president of the Senate
and the president of the United States make an enrolled bill
“complete and unimpeachable,” the court said, adding that Public
Citizen did not “establish that the House passed a bill that
differs from the one passed in the Senate.”

Public Citizen said the court’s decision “gave an overly broad
reading” to the 1892 case. “We are disappointed in the decision,
which allows a blatant violation of the Constitution to go
unaddressed,” Adina Rosenbaum, a Public Citizen attorney, said in a
statement.

Public Citizen plans to appeal the decision.

The lawsuit was one of six filed this year challenging the
constitutionality of the DRA. Two other suits have been dismissed
in district court.