SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
maryland
Court Blocks 'Illegal' Trump Rule That Created Barriers to Affordable Care Act Coverage
With eligibility verification and fees, the rule was projected to force 2 million people to drop their insurance, said cities and advocacy groups that sued the administration.
Jun 12, 2026
Officials in several cities joined advocacy groups in celebrating a federal court ruling Friday that blocked the Trump administration's rule which, they argued in a lawsuit, illegally imposed new fees and created barriers "that would make it harder—and in some cases impossible—for people to get and keep affordable health insurance."
The cities of Columbus, Ohio; Baltimore; and Chicago were among the plaintiffs in a case filed last week in the US District Court of Maryland against Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy and other Trump officials, arguing that the so-called "Marketplace Integrity and Affordability" rule would destabilize the insurance market and penalize vulnerable families, "rather than promoting affordability."
The rule was introduced in May, months after Affordable Care Act subsidies that had made ACA insurance premiums more affordable for millions of people were allowed to expire by Republicans in Congress. More than 1 million fewer Americans signed up for coverage in ACA exchanges after the tax credits expired, and the Trump administration claimed that the new rule's provision of more "catastrophic" insurance plans would give more "choice" to people who couldn't afford plans that cover more healthcare needs.
The rule also required additional verification for low-income households before they enroll in ACA plans, with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz claiming the new requirement "strengthens eligibility checks, cracks down on abuse, and gives insurers more flexibility to offer affordable, consumer-focused coverage options."
“Cloaked in the pretense of government efficiency and fraud prevention, the 2026 rule creates numerous barriers to affordable insurance coverage."
The verification requirements and new fees could cause as many as 2 million people to drop their coverage, said Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs, as well as raising annual costs by about $700 for families.
“Cloaked in the pretense of government efficiency and fraud prevention, the 2026 rule creates numerous barriers to affordable insurance coverage, negating the ACA’s goal of extending affordable health coverage to all Americans, and instead increasing the population of underinsured and uninsured Americans,” the plaintiffs said in the lawsuit.
In the ruling on Friday, US District Judge Brendan Hurson vacated several provisions of the rule, including ones that revoked guaranteed insurance coverage for people with past-due premiums; required eligibility verification for the special ACA enrollment period; and imposed a $5 premium penalty on people who automatically reenrolled in their plans.
Columbus City Attorney Zach Klein said the rule's provisions were among "the Trump-Vance administration’s illegal attempts to undermine the Affordable Care Act."
“This ruling is a significant win for millions of Americans, including thousands in Ohio, who would have been denied coverage or seen their out-of-pocket costs skyrocket due to this president and his administration," said Klein. "We will continue to fight to protect healthcare coverage for all Americans whenever it’s threatened.”
Richard Trent, executive director of Main Street Alliance, a small business advocacy group that also joined the lawsuit, said that "the Trump-Vance administration’s unlawful attempt to undermine the Affordable Care Act would have increased costs, created unnecessary barriers to coverage, and made it harder for entrepreneurs and workers to get the care they need."
"Small business owners cannot grow their businesses when healthcare becomes more expensive and less accessible," said Trent. "We are grateful that the court has protected these critical safeguards and reaffirmed that affordable healthcare remains essential to a strong economy and thriving Main Streets across the country."
Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott also applauded the ruling, but emphasized that healthcare advocates' "work is not over."
As Common Dreams reported Friday, tied up in the Trump administration's push for more Americans to use high-deductible catastrophic insurance—which is likely to present families with high out-of-pocket costs—is a plan to push households into more medical debt by allowing them to take out loans directly from their health insurance companies.
“We will continue to fight back against any attempts by this administration to slash protections under the ACA," said Scott, "and will not stop fighting until every person in this nation has access to the affordable, quality healthcare they deserve.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Maryland Residents to Pay $1.6 Billion More in Power Bills Due to Out-of-State Data Centers: Complaint
"Maryland customers have neither caused the need for these billions in new transmission projects, nor will they meaningfully benefit from them," said Maryland People’s Counsel David S. Lapp.
May 08, 2026
A top state utilities regulator is calling foul on an effort to shift the power cost of out-of-state artificial intelligence data centers onto Maryland residents.
Maryland's Office of People's Counsel on Thursday filed a complaint with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) against electric grid operator PJM Interconnection objecting to plans that it said would force residents in the state to pay $1.6 billion in data center-driven transmission costs over the next decade.
The complaint states that the transmission cost allocation methodology PJM is using "broadly socializes" the cost of increased power demands that is being driven by AI data centers.
"That result is unjust and unreasonable and violates the cost causation principles that have long governed transmission cost allocation and that this commission has repeatedly affirmed," the complaint says. "PJM’s tariff imposes these costs on Maryland electric customers even though Maryland customers do not meaningfully cause nor benefit from those investments."
The Office of People's Counsel pointed to the massive number of data centers built in neighboring Virginia as a primary culprit for added strain on the electric grid.
"Amidst national data center growth, Virginia stands as the epicenter," the complaint says. "Virginia is the largest data center market in the world... As of December 2024, data centers represented 3.6 GW of demand... reflecting, since 2013, a 660% increase in megawatt-hour consumption."
This explosive growth in energy demand is only expected to intensify over the next several years, the complaint continues, noting that "PJM projects 32 GW of peak load growth across its territory by 2030, of which approximately 30 GW is attributable to data centers."
As a remedy, the complaint asks FERC to "require PJM to take immediate action to assign data center-driven transmission costs to the PJM zones where the data center customers are located" instead of shifting the cost to Marylanders.
Commenting on his office's complaint, Maryland People’s Counsel David S. Lapp said that the attempt to saddle Maryland consumers with a $1.6 billion bill for facilities outside the state's borders shows "PJM’s cost allocation rules are broken."
"Maryland customers have neither caused the need for these billions in new transmission projects," Lapp added, "nor will they meaningfully benefit from them."
Data centers have become political lightning rods in recent months, as residents from across the country object to their mass resource consumption, which is leading to a major spike in utilities bills, as well as the noise pollution they generate.
As CNBC reported earlier this year, PJM currently projects that it will be a 6 GW short of its reliability requirements in 2027 thanks to the added demand from data centers.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) earlier this year introduced a bill that would impose a nationwide moratorium on AI data center construction “until strong national safeguards are in place to protect workers, consumers, and communities, defend privacy and civil rights, and ensure these technologies do not harm our environment.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Maryland Becomes First US State to Ban Surveillance Pricing for Groceries
A new law will ban retailers from using shoppers' personal data to hike grocery prices—but consumer advocates warn it contains loopholes that companies could exploit.
Apr 27, 2026
Maryland will become the first US state to outlaw "surveillance pricing" for groceries after Democratic Gov. Wes Moore signed a bill on Monday barring retailers and food delivery services from using customers' personal data to alter prices.
The practice has already become rampant in online commerce, with companies like Amazon, Uber, and Delta Air Lines accused of using everything from browsing history and location to demographic information to squeeze every possible cent from consumers.
The Protection from Predatory Pricing Act, which takes effect in Maryland beginning on October 1, targets the growing use of such tactics by grocery chains and delivery apps, which Moore has accused of using "new technologies to drive up the bill for working families."
These include electronic shelf labels, which advocates have warned could allow companies to instantly change grocery prices based on the time of day, weather, and other factors that influence consumer demand.
“Digital price tags are replacing paper ones. It’s happening because we are having cameras that are watching aisles, it’s happening because we have apps that are moving from search-based to predictive,” Moore said.
Moore has cited an investigation published in December by Consumer Reports and the Groundwork Collaborative, which found that Instacart was running a “pricing experiment” that charged some customers as much as 23% more for the same items than others based on shoppers' personal data.
Another investigation by Consumer Reports last May found that Kroger was collecting lengthy profiles of individual customers, including estimates of their household size, education level, income, and even perceived "loyalty" to the company, along with sometimes dozens of other pages of personal data.
"Surveillance pricing can drive up the price of food," said Grace Gedye, senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports. "Retailers have a lot of data about individual shoppers: how often we search for or hover over particular items, whether we live near competitor stores, inferences about our likes and dislikes, our dietary needs, our income, our family size, and more."
"Surveillance pricing," she said, "allows companies to take advantage of that information asymmetry and charge you as much as they think you’re individually willing to pay.”
To combat this, Maryland's new law requires that shelf prices remain steady for one full business day. It also bars retailers from using surveillance data, such as inferred income, ethnicity, family size, neighborhood, or purchasing history, to raise prices for individuals.
Companies that violate the law will receive civil penalties of up to $10,000 for first offenses and $25,000 for repeat offenses. They will also be given 45 days to correct violations before these fines apply.
Gedye said, "While it’s encouraging to see the Maryland Legislature take up this issue, this law has loopholes that will limit its real-world impact."
The law faced fierce opposition from industry groups, including the Maryland Retailers Alliance. The group ultimately withdrew its opposition, but only after several new provisions were introduced that Consumer Reports said "undercut" the law's effectiveness.
While the law bans the use of personal data to set higher prices, the group said there is no way to determine what constitutes a "baseline or standard price," meaning price fluctuations could easily be marketed as discounts. It also said companies could use loyalty and subscription programs—which are exempt from the law—to raise prices.
The group also warned that the law is too hard to enforce, since only the Maryland attorney general, not customers themselves, can bring suits, which it said is a "departure from Maryland’s primary consumer protection law."
Many other states—including California, New York, and Illinois—are considering similar bans, and legislation has been proposed at the federal level to outlaw surveillance and surge-pricing practices nationwide.
Gedye said, "We urge other state legislatures considering personalized pricing legislation to build in stronger consumer protections and avoid loopholes that weakened this bill.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular