437 P.3d 15
Idaho2019Background
- In Nov. 2018 Idaho voters adopted Proposition 2, enacted as I.C. § 56-267, directing the state to expand Medicaid to persons under 65 with MAGI ≤ 133% FPL and requiring the Department to submit state-plan amendments within 90 days.
- Brent Regan filed an original petition in the Idaho Supreme Court seeking a declaration that § 56-267 is unconstitutional because it delegates future lawmaking power to the federal government; he also sought a writ of mandamus ordering the Secretary of State to remove the statute from the Code.
- Regan’s challenge focused on § 56-267’s phrase “in accordance with sections 1902(a)(10)(A)(i)(VIII) and 1902(e)(14) of the Social Security Act,” arguing that subsequent federal changes would bind Idaho.
- The Court addressed several procedural threshold issues: (1) Idaho Code § 34-1809(4) (statutory route for initiative challenges) was held unconstitutional because the legislature cannot expand the Court’s original jurisdiction; (2) the Court nonetheless exercised its constitutional original jurisdiction (Art. V § 9) and relaxed standing due to urgency (the 90‑day submission deadline and legislative needs).
- On the merits the Court rejected Regan’s delegation claim, distinguishing earlier Idaho precedent that struck down statutes that required compliance with future federal amendments, and concluding § 56-267 adopts the federal provisions as they existed at enactment and does not bind Idaho to future federal amendments without state action.
- The petition was dismissed, the mandamus denied, and no attorney fees were awarded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Regan) | Defendant / State Argument (Denney / Intervenors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of I.C. § 34-1809(4) as source of Supreme Court original jurisdiction | § 34-1809(4) authorizes elector to seek Court review of initiatives | Legislature cannot expand Court's original jurisdiction beyond Constitution | § 34-1809(4) is unconstitutional and cannot confer original jurisdiction |
| Whether the Court should exercise original jurisdiction despite procedural defects | Regan urged immediate review under § 34-1809(4) | State argued lack of jurisdiction and standing; Secretary need not be ordered to remove code text | Court exercised Art. V § 9 jurisdiction discretionarily due to urgency (90‑day deadline) and relaxed standing |
| Standing / justiciability | Regan relied on statutory standing and public‑interest injury | State argued Regan lacked individualized injury; many procedural defects | Court relaxed standing requirements and heard the merits because of urgent public and legislative interests |
| Whether § 56-267 unlawfully delegates legislative power to federal government | The reference to federal Social Security Act provisions delegates future lawmaking to Congress/agency, binding Idaho to future federal amendments | The statute adopts the cited federal provisions as they existed at enactment; any change would require state action (appropriation/legislation) | § 56-267 is constitutional; referencing specific federal provisions adopts them as of enactment and does not constitute an unlawful delegation to the federal government |
Key Cases Cited
- Stafford v. Idaho Dept. of Health & Welfare, 145 Idaho 530 (Idaho 2008) (explains Medicaid as cooperative federal‑state program and federal standards apply)
- Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (U.S. 2012) (held Medicaid expansion under ACA could not be coerced; states may voluntarily expand)
- Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist. v. Barker, 38 Idaho 529 (Idaho 1924) (distinguishes adopting a statute as it exists at time of adoption from adopting law as it may change)
- Brannon v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 153 Idaho 843 (Idaho 2012) (statute referencing a federal act adopts the federal law as it existed at adoption; repeal of the federal statute did not affect the state statute’s operation)
- Idaho Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Roden, 82 Idaho 128 (Idaho 1960) (invalidated state provisions that required entities to conform to future federal amendments and federal agency rules, as unlawful delegation)
- State v. Kellogg, 98 Idaho 541 (Idaho 1977) (permitted conditioning state status on ascertainable facts appearing in federal law; delegation analysis must consider practical context)
- Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. Denney, 161 Idaho 508 (Idaho 2015) (discusses discretionary issuance of extraordinary writs and when the Court will exercise original jurisdiction)
- Gibbons v. Cenarrusa, 140 Idaho 316 (Idaho 2002) (initiatives and legislative acts stand on equal footing once enacted)