III 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 134 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Department of Justice should 

reverse its position in Texas v. United States, No. 4:18–cv–00167– 

O (N.D. Tex.). 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 2, 2019 

Mrs. SHAHEEN (for herself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. WYDEN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mrs. 

FEINSTEIN, Mr. JONES, Mr. BROWN, Mr. CARPER, Ms. ROSEN, Mr. 

DURBIN, Mr. MURPHY, Mr. BOOKER, Mr. REED, Mr. TESTER, Ms. 

HIRONO, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. LEAHY, 

Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. WARNER, Mr. PETERS, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Ms. 

HASSAN, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. UDALL, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. MANCHIN, Mr. 

BLUMENTHAL, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, Mr. CARDIN, Ms. 

SINEMA, Ms. DUCKWORTH, Mr. MARKEY, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. COONS, 

Ms. WARREN, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. CASEY, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. KAINE, 

Mr. SCHATZ, Ms. SMITH, Mr. BENNET, Mr. KING, and Ms. HARRIS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 

the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of the Senate that the Department 

of Justice should reverse its position in Texas v. United 

States, No. 4:18–cv–00167–O (N.D. Tex.). 

Whereas, on February 26, 2018, 18 State attorneys general 

and 2 Governors filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Texas v. 

United States, No. 4:18–cv–00167–O (N.D. Tex.) (in 

this preamble referred to as ‘‘Texas v. United States’’), 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 134 IS 

arguing that the requirement of the Patient Protection 

and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148; 124 Stat. 

119) (in this preamble referred to as the ‘‘ACA’’) to 

maintain minimum essential coverage is unconstitutional 

and, as a result, the court should invalidate the entire 

law; 

Whereas, in a June 7, 2018, letter to Congress, then Attorney General Jefferson Sessions announced that the Department of Justice— 

(1) would not defend the constitutionality of the 

minimum essential coverage provision; and 

(2) would argue that provisions protecting individuals with pre-existing medical conditions (specifically the 

provisions commonly known as ‘‘community rating’’ and 

‘‘guaranteed issue’’) are inseverable from the minimum 

essential coverage provision and should be invalidated; 

Whereas, in the June 7, 2018, letter to Congress, Attorney 

General Sessions also advised Congress that ‘‘the Department will continue to argue that Section 5000A(a) is severable from the remaining provisions of the ACA’’, indicating a difference from the plaintiffs’ position in Texas 

v. United States; 

Whereas, on December 14, 2018, the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of Texas issued an order 

that declared the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage unconstitutional and struck down the 

ACA in its entirety, including protections for individuals 

with pre-existing medical conditions; 

Whereas the decision of the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Texas was stayed and is pending 

appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fifth Circuit; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•SRES 134 IS 

Whereas, on March 25, 2019, the Department of Justice, in 

a letter to the United States Court of Appeals for the 

Fifth Circuit, changed its position and announced that 

the entire ruling of the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Texas should be upheld and the 

entire ACA should be declared unconstitutional; 

Whereas, prior to 2014, individuals with pre-existing medical 

conditions were routinely denied health insurance coverage, subject to coverage exclusions, charged unaffordable premium rates, exposed to unaffordable out-of-pocket costs, and subject to lifetime and annual limits on 

health insurance coverage; 

Whereas as many as 133,000,000 nonelderly people in the 

United States— 

(1) have a pre-existing condition and could have 

been denied coverage or only offered coverage at an exorbitant price had they needed individual market health insurance prior to 2014; and 

(2) will lose protections for pre-existing conditions if 

the ruling of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of Texas is upheld in Texas v. United 

States; 

Whereas, as of March 2019, employers cannot place lifetime 

or annual limits on health coverage for their employees, 

and if the ruling of the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Texas is upheld, more than 

100,000,000 people in the United States who receive 

health insurance through their employer could once again 

face lifetime or annual coverage limits; 

Whereas, prior to 2010, Medicare enrollees faced massive 

out-of-pocket prescription drug costs once they reached a 

certain threshold known as the Medicare ‘‘donut hole’’, 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
4 

•SRES 134 IS 

and since the donut hole began closing in 2010, millions 

of Medicare beneficiaries have saved billions of dollars on 

prescription drugs; 

Whereas, at a time when 3 in 10 adults report not taking 

prescribed medicines because of the cost, if the ruling of 

the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas is upheld, seniors enrolled in Medicare 

would face billions of dollars in new prescription drug 

costs; 

Whereas, as of March 2019, 37 States and the District of 

Columbia have expanded or voted to expand Medicaid to 

individuals with incomes below 138 percent of the Federal poverty level, providing health coverage to more than 

12,000,000 newly eligible people; 

Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Texas is upheld, the millions of 

individuals and families who receive coverage from Medicaid could lose eligibility and no longer have access to 

health care; 

Whereas, as of March 2019, many people who buy individual 

health insurance are provided tax credits to reduce the 

cost of premiums and assistance to reduce out-of-pocket 

costs such as copays and deductibles, which has made individual health insurance coverage affordable for millions 

of people in the United States for the first time; 

Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Texas is upheld, the health insurance individual exchanges would be eliminated and 

millions of people in the United States who buy health 

insurance on the individual marketplaces could lose covVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:40 Apr 02, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR134.IS SR134

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
5 

•SRES 134 IS 

erage and would see premium expenses for individual 

health insurance increase exorbitantly; and 

Whereas, if the ruling of the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of Texas is upheld, people in the 

United States would lose numerous consumer protections, 

including the requirements that— 

(1) plans offer preventive care without cost-sharing; 

(2) young adults can remain on their parents’ insurance plan until age 26; and 

(3) many health insurance plans offer a comprehensive set of essential health benefits such as maternity 

care, addiction treatment, and prescription drug coverage: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the 

2 Department of Justice should— 

3 (1) protect individuals with pre-existing condi4 tions, seniors struggling with high prescription drug 

5 costs, and the millions of people in the United States 

6 who newly gained health insurance coverage since 

7 2014; and 

8 (2) reverse its position in Texas v. United 

9 States, No. 4:18–cv–00167–O (N.D. Tex.). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS