WASHINGTON--A lawsuit protesting the Deficit Reduction Act's constitutionality was dismissed in U.S. district court Wednesday.

Public Citizen, a consumer watchdog group, filed the suit in March, claiming the law was invalid because the version passed by the House of Representatives was different from the version passed by the Senate and signed by the president (see HomeCare, March 27).

The DRA cuts spending for Medicare, Medicaid and other mandatory programs by $38.8 billion over five years, including a provision that caps Medicare rental of oxygen equipment at 36 months and rental of other DME at 13 months.

As the legislation was passed back and forth between the House and Senate last year, a typo involving the DME rental cap was inserted into the House version. The Senate passed a version of the bill without the typo, which was then signed by the president. Under the constitution, bills passed by both chambers should be identical.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Public Citizen's lawsuit, citing the "enrolled bill rule" in the 1892 court case Marshall Field v. Clark. Under the rule, the signatures of the Speaker of the House, the president of the Senate and the president of the United States make an enrolled bill "complete and unimpeachable," the court said, adding that Public Citizen did not "establish that the House passed a bill that differs from the one passed in the Senate."

Public Citizen said the court's decision "gave an overly broad reading" to the 1892 case. "We are disappointed in the decision, which allows a blatant violation of the Constitution to go unaddressed," Adina Rosenbaum, a Public Citizen attorney, said in a statement.

Public Citizen plans to appeal the decision.

The lawsuit was one of six filed this year challenging the constitutionality of the DRA. Two other suits have been dismissed in district court.