The Success of Florida’s Immigration Law & Jack Smith’s Constitutional Questions - Top 3 Takeaways – June 25th, 2024
- The difference a question makes. Yesterday I first brought you the news, via an investigative report from Politico, that Florida’s crackdown on Medicaid abuses by illegal immigrants has resulted in huge savings for the state. As was noted by Politico: Medicaid expenditures for undocumented immigrants in Florida has dropped dramatically since Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a law directing hospitals to ask patients about their immigration status. Specifically, there’s been a 54% reduction in Medicaid expenses paid for by the state – meaning ultimately paid for by you - to those lacking legal status in the current fiscal year. As much as I’m sure that you enjoy paying for the healthcare costs of illegal immigrants in addition to your own, I’d be willing to bet that you view that as a win. As was cited by the Politico Report the reduction appears to be almost entirely based on the simple asking of the question as to one’s immigration status. The story goes on to tell a tale of woe from open borders proponents warning of unquantified but theoretical medical needs that are going untreated because those lacking legal status are commonly opting not to seek medical care – it is Politico after all – but as was noted by the state, a hospital can’t deny service to someone in need regardless of immigration status. So, we see that roughly half the number of illegal immigrants seeking hospital care, paid for via Medicaid, is still happening – and there aren’t any indications of mass migrant graves popping up across the state. What appears to have happened is that those in need of emergency medical care are still getting it, while those who’ve used taxpayer provided hospital care as a form of “free” healthcare have not been as inclined to abuse the system to the extent they had been. What this exercise illustrates is that by simply having a hospital ask an immigration question, it would appear that the state of Florida has reduced the abuse of Florida’s healthcare system by about half, saving taxpayers over $80 million within the first year. That’s even more remarkable when you consider the record amount of illegal immigration that’s been allowed into this country, and most commonly into our state by the Biden administration, during the same time. Minding the store, even just a little bit matters. And there’s another dynamic implicit within this story.
- If there’s less abuse of hospital care by illegal immigrants, there’s also better access and quicker care for Floridians who need emergency care. Also, have you noticed how nearly a year after Floridia’s immigration law took effect – with mandatory E-Verify for employers with 25 or more employees - that there are still Fresh From Florida products available in the store? Have you noticed how businesses enmasse haven’t had to close their doors? Predictably the dire warnings from open borders advocates on the left regarding the impact of Florida’s immigration law a year ago have fallen flat. But what has happened over the past year has been a win-win for Floridians. Speaking of questions...
- Jack Smith’s constitutional question. To say that this is a huge week for the former and perhaps future President of the United States may be an understatement. Thursday night we have the first presidential debate and by the end of the week we’ll likely hear the Supreme Court rule on the breadth and depth of presidential immunity which could determine whether Trump is tried in the other three outstanding criminal cases against him (or whether they could end up being dismissed). But there’s another question currently being considered by Judge Aileen Cannon, overseeing that classified documents case that would have the potential to effectively eliminate both outstanding federal cases against Trump. Whether Jack Smith was unconstitutionally appointed by Attorney General Merrick Garland and whether he’s been illegally funded in the two cases he’s brought against Trump up to this point. The argument made in court Monday was effectively this. As noted by Boston University’s School of Law: All federal offices must be “established by Law,” and there is no statute authorizing such an office in the DOJ. So, there’s an argument to be made that the creation of any special counsel’s office without explicit authorization by congress, in this instance involving Jack Smith, the need for Senate confirmation, is unconstitutional. It’s a solid constitutional argument however with so many special counsels having been appointed by numerous administrations over the past 50 years the established president in place probably makes that argument a long shot at best. The next piece of the argument appears to be a bit stronger. Under the law granting the attorney general authority to appoint a special counsel it states: The attorney general may appoint officials to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States. The Trump team is arguing that the use of the term “officials” means Department of Justice employees. Jack Smith was not a Justice Department appointee at the time of his appointment. That led to the third argument that entered into the equation...how Jack Smith is funded. Jack Smith, previously a non-government employee, has theoretically been granted complete independence from the Attorney General and has been handed an unlimited budget for his cases against Trump. All spending by the federal government must be approved by congress. So, in essence you had a non-DOJ employee appointed to a post with an unlimited budget from the DOJ at the exclusive discretion of the Attorney General. There are three potential constitutional questions about the validity of Jack Smith’s role as special prosecutor that Judge Cannon will now weigh. If any one of them were to work it could get Trump off the hook. While Cannon’s decision is somewhat uncertain, as is the timeline for her to make a ruling on the effort to oust Jack Smith... Something that is far more certain. A week from today we’ll have much greater clarity on Trump’s outstanding legal jeopardy and the overall state of the presidential race.