On Thursday, a federal judge sided with House GOP members and ruled that the Obama administration was unconstitutionally spending money on the Affordable Care Act without the approval of Congress.

In their lawsuit, House Republicans argued that the administration went around Congress to give billions of federal dollars to insurance companies in order to help them reduce out-of-pocket costs to Obamacare enrollees. But the Obama administration argued that the payments were allowed because it was written into the law that way, in the same section that subsidized low-income sign-ups, as The Hill noted.

Judge Rosemary Collyer didn't agree and said the additional "cost sharing reductions" should be sent to Congress for approval. She wrote:

Such an appropriation cannot be inferred. None of Secretaries’ extra-textual arguments — whether based on economics, "unintended" results, or legislative history — is persuasive. The Court will enter judgment in favor of the House of Representatives and enjoin the use of unappropriated monies to fund reimbursements due to insurers under Section 1402.

 "Unlike previous ObamaCare lawsuits, this one is not expected to deal a crippling blow to the law if Republicans ultimately prevail," states The Hill.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said in response to the ruling, "This is not the first time that we've seen opponents of the Affordable Care Act go through the motions to try to win this political fight in the court system. They've been losing this fight for six years, and they'll lose it again."

Earnest seemed upset that America has a system of checks and balances in place when he said, "This suit represents the first time in our nation's history that Congress has been permitted to sue the executive branch over a disagreement about how to interpret a statute."

He should listen closely to Judge Collyer's words; they're very important:

Authorization and appropriation by Congress are non-negotiable prerequisites to government spending.

Any questions, Josh?