15 states, including Idaho, sue to block Biden's effort to help migrants in US illegally get health coverage

TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Fifteen states filed a federal lawsuit Thursday against the Biden administration over a rule that is expected to allow 100,000 immigrants brought to the U.S. illegally as children to enroll next year in the federal Affordable Care Act's health insurance.

The states are seeking to block the rule from taking effect Nov. 1 and providing people known as “Dreamers” access to tax breaks when they sign up for coverage. The Affordable Care Act’s marketplace enrollment opens the same day, just four days ahead of the presidential election.

The states filed suit in North Dakota, one of the states involved. All have Republican attorneys general who are part of a GOP effort to thwart Biden administration rules advancing Democratic policy goals.

The lawsuit argues that the rule violates a 1996 welfare reform law and the ACA. They also said it would encourage more immigrants to come to the U.S. illegally, burdening the states and their public-school systems. Many economists have concluded that immigrants provide a net economic benefit, and immigration appears to have fueled job growth after the COVID-19 pandemic that prevented a recession.

The lawsuit comes amid Republican attacks on Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, as weak on curbing illegal immigration. Border crossings hit record highs during the Biden administration but have dropped more recently.

“Illegal aliens shouldn’t get a free pass into our country," Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach said in a statement. “They shouldn’t receive taxpayer benefits when they arrive, and the Biden-Harris administration shouldn’t get a free pass to violate federal law.”

Kobach is an immigration hardliner who began building a national profile two decades ago by urging tough restrictions on immigrants living in the U.S. illegally, and he helped draft Arizona’s “show your papers” law in 2010. Besides Kansas and North Dakota, the other states involved in the lawsuit are Alabama, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Virginia.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services officials did not immediately respond Thursday to an email seeking comment about the lawsuit. But Biden said in May in outlining the rule that he was “committed to providing Dreamers the support they need to succeed.” The Biden administration is shielding them from deportation.

The “Dreamers” and their advocates have said they're young people who had little or no choice in coming to the U.S. and years later are fully integrated into their communities. At least 25 states, including Kansas, Nebraska and Virginia, allow them to pay the lower tuition rates reserved for their residents, according to the National Immigration Law Center.

In May, Biden said: “I’m proud of the contributions of Dreamers to our country."

The “Dreamers” have been ineligible for government-subsidized health insurance programs because they did not meet the definition of having a “lawful presence” in the U.S. The states filing the lawsuit said declaring their lawful presence by rule is "illogical on its face,” given that they'd face deportation without Biden administration intervention.

“Subsidized health insurance through the ACA is a valuable public benefit that encourages unlawfully present alien beneficiaries to remain in the United States,” the lawsuit said.

In past lawsuits against the Biden administration, states have sometimes struggled to persuade judges that the harm they face from a new rule is direct, concrete and specific enough to give them the right to sue. Of the 15 states involved in the lawsuit, only Idaho and Virginia run their own health insurance marketplaces instead of relying on a federal one.

But the states argue that they all face higher costs from increased illegal immigration. They rely on a 2023 report from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which not only argues for stronger laws against illegal immigration but sharp curbs on legal immigration.