; 124 Stat. 119) is unconstitutional and should be enjoined by asserting that the Act’s requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage (commonly known as the individual responsibility provision ) in section 5000A(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, is unconstitutional following the amendment of that provision by the Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018 ( Public Law 115–97 ) (commonly known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act ). (2) These State and individual plaintiffs also seek to strike down the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as not severable from the individual responsibility provision. (3) On June 7, 2018, the Department of Justice refused to defend the constitutionality of the amended individual responsibility provision, despite the well-established duty of the Department to defend Federal statutes where reasonable arguments can be made in their defense. (4) The Department of Justice not only refused to defend the amended individual responsibility provision, but affirmatively argued that this provision is unconstitutional and that the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act guaranteeing issuance of health insurance coverage regardless of health status or preexisting conditions (commonly known as the guaranteed issue provision ) found in sections 2702, 2704, and 2705(a) of the Public Health Service Act ( 42 U.S.C. 300gg–1 , 300gg–3, 300gg–4(a)) and prohibitions on discriminatory premium rates (commonly known as the community rating provision ) found in sections 2701 and 2705(b) of the Public Health Service Act ( 42 U.S.C. 300gg(a)(1) , 300gg–4(b)) must now be struck down as not severable from the individual responsibility provision. (5) The district court recently held that the individual responsibility provision is unconstitutional and that all of the remaining provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act are inseverable and therefore invalid. (6) Up to 133