An Oklahoma federal judge ruled against the federal government providing health care subsidies. The health subsidies were in the form of tax credits from the IRS as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

According to U.S. District Judge Ronald White of Muskogee, Oklahoma, the subsidies should only apply to consumers in the 14 states with state-based health insurance marketplaces. He added that people enrolled through the federal health insurance marketplace are not eligible for the subsidies, because their states didn't establish their own marketplaces.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt put the lawsuit forward. Following White's decision, Pruitt said the ruling was a "consequential victory for the rule of law" and panned the federal government.

"The administration and its bureaucrats in the IRS handed out billions in illegal tax credits and subsidies and vastly expanded the reach of the health care law because they didn't like the way Congress wrote the Affordable Care Act. That's not how our system of government works," Pruitt said.

According to Pruitt, the Obama administration created the issues of the ACA, also known as Obamacare, and Congress should have acted on the law instead of the ACA. He added, "Oklahoma was the first to challenge the administration's actions and today's ruling vindicates what we recognized early on and that is the administration can't rewrite the Affordable Care Act by executive fiat."

The lawsuit claimed the IRS' rules contradicted the ACA law. In addition to language regarding the state-based health care exchange and subsidies, the lawsuit also addressed the penalties on "larger employer" companies not providing health insurance.

"This is a case of statutory interpretation," wrote White in his ruling. He noted that Congress could amend the ACA to provide the tax credit subsidies to both state-based and federal health insurance exchanges. Instead, White based his decision on how the ACA is currently written.

"The court holds that the IRS Rule is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law ... in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right ... or otherwise is an invalid implementation of the ACA, and is hereby vacated," White ruled.

"Oklahoma filed the first lawsuit in 2012, others have followed our lead and made similar claims in other jurisdictions," said Pruitt. "It's likely this issue will ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. We look forward to making our case and continuing the effort to hold federal agencies accountable to their duty to enforce the laws passed by Congress."

Although White's decision ruled the subsidies invalid, it will continue in Oklahoma pending an appeal process.

In July, an appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, said the subsidies were valid for enrollees on the federal exchanges. The U.S. Department of Justice said it plans to appeal White's decision.

"The district judge in the Oklahoma case made a decision that is inconsistent with the text of the statute, the clear intent of Congress, common sense [and the Richmond court's] unanimous contrary ruling on the same issue," Justice Department spokesperson Emily Pierce said, via Bloomberg.

White's decision comes as the second open enrollment period begins next month. The Nov. 15 start date plans to enroll new health insurance consumers in addition to the 8 million enrolled during the first enrollment period between Oct. 1, 2013 and March 31, 2014, and during the extended Special Enrollment Period through April 19.

Of the 8 million enrollees, 28 percent are millennials -- between the ages of 18 and 34. Latinos represent the third-largest group of enrollees based on race and ethnicity. While whites and African-Americans represented 62.9 percent and 16.7 percent of the Obamacare enrollment respectively, Latinos were 10.7 percent of the applicants.

Related