To say this is inappropriate is not a strong enough statement; in fact, this proposed law is probably unconstitutional. You don't get to "erase" decisions by the judiciary branch that you don't agree with or like by not allowing them to be used as precedent in other cases; otherwise, what is the point of the judiciary or the body of law that has already been interpreted? Further, does this provide Congress with a tool, not just to erase precedent related to the Affordable Care Act, but to erase precedent they don't like? For instance, don't like the decision on the Executive Order by the 9th Circuit on the travel ban? Don't like Roe v. Wade? Congress could then ironically, use this bill or similar, to erase all that precedent as well. With the application of this proposed law, could Congress prevent the Supreme Court from citing to either of these cases in the future? There is a reason there are three branches of government; it is Congress' job to make the law, the judiciary to interpret it. It is a slippery slope to allow this. All three branches of government are equal, but this would render the judiciary useless as any decision could be effectively "erased" from our collective body of law.