So, a whole bunch of states are suing the government, arguing that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, and they're specifically outraged by the individual mandate. Already different courts have decided the issue differently, with some upholding the law, others finding the mandate unconstitutional, and still another striking down the whole law.
Since parts of the law are already being implemented, and still others are due to be implemented soon (and others as late as 2014) the administration has asked the court which struck down the whole law to "clarify" that they really meant they wanted the whole law to be struck down. In doing so, the administration points out that the states who are outraged by the law are... already implementing the law:
As part of the new argument Monday for a pared-down ruling, the Administration said there is considerable confusion among the states as to just what would be at stake if the entire law were stopped in its tracks now. In fact, the document said, a number of the states are continuing to apply for, and receive, funds under the new law, and those could be at risk.
Since the judge’s ruling at the end of January, the new brief said, at least 24 of the 26 states who sued in Vinson’s court “have applied for additional grants authorized or appropriated” by the law, have “continued to draw down grant funds previously awarded” under it, or “otherwise availed themselves of resources made available” by the law.
Seems a bit hypocritical. States who are suing to end the law are availing themselves of its benefits in the meantime. Seems like either you think it's an infringement upon federalist ideals or you support the law and want to enforce it. I guess if you're a Republican state you can have it both ways, or something.