Obamacare Cases Move Toward SCOTUS

The Obama administration and its challengers filed appeals in lawsuits over the law’s insurance subsidies.

WASHINGTON, DC - JUNE 28: Obamacare supporters and protesters gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court to find out the ruling on the Affordable Health Act June 28, 2012 in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, DC. The Supreme Court has upheld the whole healthcare law of the Obama Administration. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
National Journal
Sam Baker
Aug. 1, 2014, 9:51 a.m.

The latest round of anti-Obama­care law­suits is inch­ing closer to the Su­preme Court.

Both the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment and its chal­lengers filed ap­peals this week in cases in­volving the law’s in­sur­ance sub­sidies. The chal­lenges, if they suc­ceed, would tear apart cent­ral pro­vi­sions of the Af­ford­able Care Act.

On Fri­day, the Justice De­part­ment asked a fed­er­al Ap­peals Court to over­turn a rul­ing that said in­sur­ance sub­sidies should not be avail­able in more than half the coun­try. That rul­ing would “evis­cer­ate the ACA”s mod­el of co­oper­at­ive fed­er­al­ism” and “thwart the op­er­a­tion of the ACA’s core pro­vi­sions,” the Justice De­part­ment ar­gued.

A three-judge pan­el of the D.C. Cir­cuit Court of Ap­peals said earli­er this month that the IRS broke the law by mak­ing in­sur­ance sub­sidies avail­able in every state. The fin­an­cial as­sist­ance should only be avail­able to people who live in states that es­tab­lished their own in­sur­ance ex­changes, the pan­el said in a 2-1 rul­ing.

As ex­pec­ted, the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion asked the full D.C. Cir­cuit to hear the chal­lenge and re­verse the pan­el’s de­cision. It said the pan­el’s rul­ing was too nar­row and ig­nored the broad­er goals of the health care law.

On the same day the D.C. Cir­cuit pan­el is­sued its de­cision, an­oth­er three-judge pan­el in an­oth­er fed­er­al Ap­peals Court — the 4th Cir­cuit — also ruled in a nearly identic­al law­suit. That pan­el, though, sided with the Justice De­part­ment, say­ing sub­sidies are leg­al in all 50 states.

The chal­lengers in that case, King v. Bur­well, ap­pealed their case to the Su­preme Court on Thursday. Cit­ing the di­vi­sion between the D.C. Cir­cuit and the 4th Cir­cuit, the chal­lengers said the Su­preme Court needs to settle the dis­pute as soon as pos­sible.

“The dis­agree­ment is clear, and all of the ar­gu­ments on both sides have been thor­oughly aired. Only this Court can ul­ti­mately re­solve the is­sue,” the brief states.

Leg­al ex­perts had pre­dicted this leg­al strategy. The chal­lengers are try­ing to move quickly be­cause the split between Cir­cuit Courts might not last — and if it doesn’t, the Su­preme Court would be less likely to take up the is­sue.

If the Justice De­part­ment wins its ap­peal be­fore the full D.C. Cir­cuit, the D.C. Cir­cuit and the 4th Cir­cuit would be in agree­ment: The sub­sidies are leg­al every­where. Al­though the leg­al dis­pute might still be high-pro­file enough that the Su­preme Court would feel com­pelled to step in, the justices wouldn’t need to re­solve con­flict­ing rul­ings from lower courts.

The dis­pute over Obama­care’s sub­sidies stems from the word­ing of the law. The sec­tion that au­thor­izes premi­um sub­sidies says they should be avail­able in “an ex­change es­tab­lished by the State.”

The chal­lengers say that’s clear evid­ence that the sub­sidies should be avail­able only through state-run ex­changes — not in the 36 states that punted their mar­ket­places to the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment. They ar­gue that Con­gress lim­ited the sub­sidies to state-run ex­changes in­ten­tion­ally, so that states would feel pres­sure to set up their own mar­ket­places.

The Justice De­part­ment says that’s too nar­row a read­ing, and that Con­gress in­ten­ded for fed­er­ally run ex­changes to “stand in the shoes” of state-based mar­ket­places. Oth­er sec­tions of the law refer to state and fed­er­al ex­changes in­ter­change­ably, and the broad­er in­tent of the law was to ex­pand ac­cess to health in­sur­ance na­tion­wide, the gov­ern­ment ar­gues.

What We're Following See More »
“CLINTON MUST BECOME THE NEXT PRESIDENT”
Bernie Sanders Seeks to Unite the Party
8 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Instead of his usual stump speech, Bernie Sanders tonight threw his support behind Hillary Clinton, providing a clear contrast between Clinton and GOP nominee Donald Trump on the many issues he used to discuss in his campaign stump speeches. Sanders spoke glowingly about the presumptive Democratic nominee, lauding her work as first lady and as a strong advocate for women and the poor. “We need leadership in this country which will improve the lives of working families, the children, the elderly, the sick and the poor,” he said. “Hillary Clinton will make a great president, and I am proud to stand with her tonight."

“MUST NEVER BE PRESIDENT”
Elizabeth Warren Goes After Donald Trump
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

In a stark contrast from Michelle Obama's uplifting speech, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke about the rigged system plaguing Americans before launching into a full-throated rebuke of GOP nominee Donald Trump. Trump is "a man who has never sacrificed anything for anyone," she claimed, before saying he "must never be president of the United States." She called him divisive and selfish, and said the American people won't accept his "hate-filled America." In addition to Trump, Warren went after the Republican Party as a whole. "To Republicans in Congress who said no, this November the American people are coming for you," she said.

FLOTUS OFFERS STRONG ENDORSEMENT OF CLINTON
Michelle Obama: “I Trust” Hillary Clinton
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"In this election, and every election, it's about who will have the power to shape our children for the next four or eight years of their lives," Michelle Obama said. "There is only one person who I trust with that responsibility … and that is our friend Hillary Clinton." In a personal and emotional speech, Michelle Obama spoke about the effect that angry oppositional rhetoric had on her children and how she chose to raise them. "When they go low, we go high," Obama said she told her children about dealing with bullies. Obama stayed mostly positive, but still offered a firm rebuke of Donald Trump, despite never once uttering his name. "The issues a president faces cannot be boiled down to 140 characters," she said.

SANDERS BACKER CONFRONTS STUBBORN SANDERS SUPPORTERS
Sarah Silverman to Bernie or Bust: “You’re Being Ridiculous”
10 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Many Bernie Sanders delegates have spent much of the first day of the Democratic National Convention resisting unity, booing at mentions of Hillary Clinton and often chanting "Bernie! Bernie!" Well, one of the most outspoken Bernie Sanders supporters just told them to take a seat. "To the Bernie-or-bust people: You're being ridiculous," said comedian Sarah Silverman in a brief appearance at the Convention, minutes after saying that she would proudly support Hillary Clinton for president.

‘INEXCUSABLE REMARKS’
DNC Formally Apologizes to Bernie Sanders
15 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Democratic National Committee issued a formal apology to Bernie Sanders today, after leaked emails showed staffers trying to sabotage his presidential bid. "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email," DNC officials said in the statement. "These comments do not reflect the values of the DNC or our steadfast commitment to neutrality during the nominating process. The DNC does not—and will not—tolerate disrespectful language exhibited toward our candidates."

Source:
×