https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2830599/House-Obamacare-lawsuit-opinion.pdf
...the Court has not changed its mind. While it is true that the Secretaries’ defense in this case requires interpreting federal statutes, the House of representatives’ claim under the Appropriations Clause does not. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7 (“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”). Instead, the interpretation of a federal statute only becomes necessary when a defendant raises such a statute as a defense. Such a defense does not turn a constitutional claim into a statutory dispute. The House’s injury depends on the Constitution and not on the U.S. Code. The Secretaries’ standing argument will be denied.
IV. CONCLUSION The Court will grant summary judgment to the House of Representatives and enter judgment in its favor. The Court will also enjoin any further reimbursements under Section 1402 until a valid appropriation is in place. However, the Court will stay its injunction pending any appeal by the parties. A memorializing Order accompanies this Opinion.
” The Court will also enjoin any further reimbursements under Section 1402 until a valid appropriation is in place. “
This is why this is only a temporary win at best. The lawsuit was brought and hinged upon a technicality, a phrase in the ACA law that utilized the term “state” inappropriately. All that really needs be done is a new law written to correct the oversight.
So this could be good if Trump is true to his promise to “get rid of Obamacare”. This will provide the opportunity to do so. However getting a new law passed will be a huge hurdle to overcome. We will see how much he is willing to “deal” (assuming he is elected).