The Affordable Care Act Is Going Back to the U.S. Supreme Court

[NotreDame]

Supreme Court to hear <i>King v. Burwell</i> challenge to IRS tax credit rule - The Washington Post

The issue is whether federal subsidies, formally known as the premium assistance credit amount, is applicable to those Exchanges established by the Secretary of Health. There are a few statutory provisions relevant to the resolution of this case. I am not posting an all inclusive or exhaustive list which may be relevant but only those helpful to understanding, at least rudimentary, the issue and argument.

Section 1311 of the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act.

(1) I​

N GENERAL.—Each State shall, not later than January
1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred
to in this title as an ‘‘Exchange’’) for the State that—​

(A) facilitates the purchase of qualified health plans

section 1311(d)(1) Requirements: An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State.

1321

the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within
the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.
​

​

A "coverge month" is defined as an "Exchange established by the State..." The premium assistance credit amount (subsidy) is applicable for "all covered months" and "covered months" is a health plan "through an Exchange established by the State..." ​

 

[NotreDame]

Personally, I think the statute does not permit subsidies for those exchanges established by the Secretary of Health, based on the plain language of the statute.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Personally, I think the statute does not permit subsidies for those exchanges established by the Secretary of Health, based on the plain language of the statute.

Mark Levin, who heads Landmark Legal Foundation, made a similar comment yesterday.

Other comments I've read on the matter suggest that the decision will depend entirely on which direction Judge Roberts chooses.

 

[Joykins]

Personally, I think the statute does not permit subsidies for those exchanges established by the Secretary of Health, based on the plain language of the statute.

That's a pretty dismal outcome for people unfortunate enough to live in those states.

 

[NotreDame]

That's a pretty dismal outcome for people unfortunate enough to live in those states.

Blame the Democrats, they wrote the statute and passed the statute while they controlled both the House and Senate.

It isn't the judiciary's proper role to fix what some perceive to be a flaw or error in the plain text of the statute.

 

[Joykins]

Blame the Democrats, they wrote the statute and passed the statute while they controlled both the House and Senate.

It isn't the judiciary's proper role to fix what some perceive to be a flaw or error in the plain text of the statute.

I had understood that legislative intent was to be taken into account? From, you know, the vast legal education I get from the free "law for engineers!" courses my company gives me

 

[vincenticus]

I had understood that legislative intent was to be taken into account? From, you know, the vast legal education I get from the free "law for engineers!" courses my company gives me

Generally, when the plain language is clear (as it is in this case) the inquiry ends and judges don't look at legislative intent. Then again, this is an obvious drafting error and the rules seem pretty fluid when it comes to the ACA. Like last time, it probably just depends on how Justice Roberts sees it.

 

[NotreDame]

I had understood that legislative intent was to be taken into account? From, you know, the vast legal education I get from the free "law for engineers!" courses my company gives me

Let's explore this notion for a moment. First, why do you think our legal system is one of written laws? What is a purpose of having the law in writing? If the law is in written form then what is the law but that which is written, correct?

Second, you assume intent is to be taken into consideration but according to statutory rules of construction, intent isn't to be relied upon when and where the text of the law is plain, clear, and provides a reasonable answer to the legal issue.

Third, Justice Scalia, quite correctly, takes the view intent isn't ever to be taken into consideration. He makes a compelling argument for this position in his book, which I recommend, "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law."

 

[Billnew]

Generally, when the plain language is clear (as it is in this case) the inquiry ends and judges don't look at legislative intent. Then again, this is an obvious drafting error and the rules seem pretty fluid when it comes to the ACA. Like last time, it probably just depends on how Justice Roberts sees it.

Drafting error?
They drafted it so states would fit the majority of the bill of Obamacare. When the states refused, Obamacare had to change the law, which was done without any action by "lawmakers".
It was done intentionally so as to keep the federal costs down.

Employer mandates haven't even hit yet. You think inidivdual mandate was a terrible, wait until the employer has to deal with the confusion and cost increases.

January; they need to end the mandates of Obamacare. No mandates, no Obamacare.

 

[Joykins]

Let's explore this notion for a moment. First, why do you think our legal system is one of written laws? What is a purpose of having the law in writing? If the law is in written form then what is the law but that which is written, correct?

ehhh...the way you put it you would think we would only need civil law.

Second, you assume intent is to be taken into consideration but according to statutory rules of construction, intent isn't to be relied upon when and where the text of the law is plain, clear, and provides a reasonable answer to the legal issue.

No--I don't assume. I have to capture some information that is said to "indicate legislative intent" so I concluded legislative intent was good for something.

Isn't the argument here that it is not clear, but made at least ambiguous by conflicting provisions?

Third, Justice Scalia, quite correctly, takes the view intent isn't ever to be taken into consideration. He makes a compelling argument for this position in his book, which I recommend, "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law."

Thanks for the engineer-friendly summary!