Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorGrowl, Jul 22, 2014.
........................ who's surprised this particular administration fubared the ACA?
Surveys room, no hands raised.
so they can get appointed in the go along get along system we have
Chief Justice Roberts, who did not want to undo the law, could now reasonably conclude the court is not undoing the law, but in fact the 42 delays and changes undid the law along with an IRS that made an interpretation that will cost taxpayers billions.
In a 2-1 vote, a panel of judges on the appeals court rejected the administration's argument that the problem in the case was triggered by imprecise language in the complex Affordable Care Act and that Congress had always intended to offer the subsidies nationwide to low- and middle-income people who bought insurance through one of the state or federal health exchanges created under the law.
But as written, the law states that subsidies should be paid to those who purchase insurance through an "exchange established by the state." That would seem to leave out the 36 states in which the exchanges are operated by the federal government.
Someone should have read it......
I have to say, I expected the DC Circuit's panel decision to result in conflict in the circuits, but I didn't expect it within hours.
The Fourth Circuit has upheld the same rule on a 3-0 panel decision.
So this might get to the Supreme next term....?
Some of the court watchers may have more knowledge than me, but I think there are still similar cases in other appeals courts. As mentioned earlier, an en banc ruling from the DC circuit is likely first (so more time needed), unless they skip it and appeal directly to the Supreme Court, which I doubt will happen. More than likely it would be 2016 or later before the SCOTUS could rule on it, I'm guessing.
2015 term starts in the fall right? The court is in recess at the moment.
wow a DC Court that actually rules on the Rule of Law
The majority opinion concluded that the law, as written, “unambiguously” restricts subsides to consumers in exchanges established by a state. That would invalidate an Internal Revenue Service regulation that tried to sort out confusing wording in the law by concluding that Congress intended for consumers in all 50 states to have subsidized coverage.
The administration is expected to appeal the ruling.
The issue is crucial to the success of the health law because most states have been unable or unwilling to set up their own exchanges. The inaction stems in many instances from opposition by Republican governors to the Affordable Care Act.
The small business owners filing the lawsuit say the tax credits enacted by Congress were intended to encourage states to set up their own health benefit exchanges and that the penalty for not doing so was withdrawal of tax credits for lower-income residents.
Supporters of the act say the purpose of the tax credit was not to promote the establishment of state exchanges, but rather to achieve Congress’s fundamental purpose of making insurance affordable for all Americans.
The case revolves around four words in the Affordable Care Act, which says the tax credits are available to people who enroll through an exchange “established by the state.”
Plaintiffs in King won't seek en banc rehearing of the Fourth (I wouldn't imagine) since their goal all along has been to get the question to SCOTUS. I would expect a cert petition on King, which will probably be granted, and that may make en banc rehearing of Halbig something of a waste of time.
I would not be surprised at all to see it on the calendar next term (although to get through briefing it may well be a late in the term case).
Is the incentive there for the administration a quicker resolution though? I'd think they'd be happy with a waste of time in the form of an en banc ruling, as the number of enrollees increases.
Not necessarily. If the DC Circuit goes en banc and reverses the panel, the SCOTUS can deny cert and avoid the issue entirely, as they are probably inclined to do.
I agree that the administration should be fine with that. It can get to SCOTUS no matter what they do in Halbig though.
Unless the Court wants to hold a cert petition in King to wait for Halbig (which, as jd noted, is a possibility - although I suspect the four in dissent on NFIB may vote to grant on King without waiting for Halbig), they can grant King and dispose of the issue without regard to what the status of Halbig is if they wanted to.
It seems the possibility of hundreds of millions being spent illegally each month in the form of subsidies there could be a push for a faster resolution.
Push from who though? The people arguing that the subsidies are perfectly legal are the ones who can most slow it down via an en banc request.
Slow it down or speed it up, makes no difference. This thing is headed to the supreme court. Roberts already gave the ACA a massive mulligan, he is not going to do it again.
The law was written exactly as it was intended. But the strong arming of States didn't work. Now, the administration wants to reinterpret the intent. Not going to fly this time.
Ok, if you can find anything in the congressional record or the media covering the debates over the drafting of the law to that effect, then please supply it.
The interesting point will be how the justices line up.
It's a pure Chevron deference question and one that, under existing Chevron caselaw, would seem to favor the government.
The interesting part is that Roberts hasn't been terribly favorable to deferring to agency interpretations under Chevron. The four liberals, Thomas, and Scalia when it's any agency other than EPA, have. So it's not immediately clear how that one would line up.
And to answer the question, DOJ has said they'll seek en banc rehearing in Halbig: http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/halbig-obamacare-ruling-justice-department-appeal-109228.html