Federal Judge rules in favor of Trump administration

In other news... hell freezes over 

A federal judge denied a request to immediately force the Trump administration to resume making the Obamacare insurance subsidy payments that it cut off earlier this month. The decision, made just a week before open enrollment begins, is a blow to plaintiffs

Chhabria, an Obama appointee, failed to see the immediate threat to consumers that would require him to compel the federal government to make the payments, particularly because most states have implemented a work-around plan to mitigate financial harm to consumers.

The ruling's language suggested the case may have been brought more for political reasons than legal merit. “With the important caveats that the Court has only been given a few days to study this complex matter and the states may not have fully developed all arguments, it initially appears the Administration has the stronger legal position,” Chhabria wrote.

I've become sort of used to these rulings going against the Trump administration, and it was always a fun game to see what sort of unlawful reasoning the court would use to rule against him. Generally the age old "he's a racist" legal argument seemed to be at the top of the list. But I guess it just didn't apply here.

That being said, the judges ruling was heavy on explaining the reasoning behind the CSR payment as well as how the states have been adopting to the reality that these payments might not be made. As it is with most of the Obama era Judges (especially from the 9th circuit region) they seem to worry more about what they believe is the correct "political" position than they do about the law.

First, although the case is at an early stage, and although it's a close question, it appears initially that the Trump Administration has the stronger legal argument. Second, and more importantly, the emergency relief sought by the states would be counterproductive.

The Judge spent much of his argument suggesting that there wasn't enough "harm" being done to justify the stay rather than explain more about the legal argument. The judge seems to openly admit that if the states could have shown more "harm" that the Judge may have ruled in their favor, in spite of having the weaker legal position. This sort of reasoning is exactly why McConnell and the Senate must move to get more adult Judges in place. Ones who are willing to honor their oath of office and follow the law (not their own political sense of right and wrong).