PATIENT PROTECTIONS WILL STAY IN PLACE DURING COURT BATTLE

encourage healthy people to sign up, the parts of the law guaranteeing coverage to people with previous health conditions — without charging them more — should be struck down as well.

In a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan explaining the administration’s decision, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions cited the Justice Department’s “longstanding tradition” of defending the constitutionality of federal laws “if reasonable arguments can be made in their defense.”

But in this case, he wrote, he could not find those arguments to defend the constitutionality of the provisions and “concluded that this is a rare case where the proper course is to forgo defense.”

The administration called on the court to declare the provisions that guarantee coverage to be invalid beginning Jan. 1, 2019, when the mandate penalty goes away.

Because the lawsuit could easily go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a process that could take years, the protections for people with pre-existing conditions are likely to stay in place during that period.

California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and front-runner in the race for California’s next governor, breathed the same fire as Becerra against the federal government.

“Trump and his cronies can’t unilaterally roll back pre-existing protections for millions of Californians,” Newsom said. “California will fight like hell to protect our families and their health care.”

A spokesman for his opponent in the race, Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox, declined to comment.

If the court ultimately declared the provisions targeted by the Trump administration unconstitutional, California would be temporarily cushioned from the effects because there are laws already on the books should the ACA — or its provisions — go away.

For instance, existing rules would protect people with pre-existing conditions for 12 months if the ACA were struck down.

During that time, “policymakers in California would look really hard at being able to try to do something so we don’t lose those gains,” said Deborah Kelch, director of the Insure the Uninsured Project in Sacramento.

“It’s hard to look at California and imagine just folding it up and starting over.”

Some critics of the administration’s decision said California should go forward with enacting its own mandate for individual coverage, as a few other states have done. No one has pushed that issue forward in the Legislature.

Since he took office in January 2017, Becerra has emerged as a top opponent of the Trump administration, filing more than 30 lawsuits on health care and other issues.

In California’s primary election last week, Becerra dominated the race with 45 percent of the vote. He will face retired judge Steven Bailey, a Republican, in the November general election.

Bailey’s spokesman Corey Uhden said he wouldn’t comment on the constitutionality of the ACA provisions. However, he said, Bailey opposed the individual mandate and wanted less government regulation of health insurance.