Supreme Court upholds ObamaCare subsidies

{mosads}In his decision, Roberts argued that a ruling killing off the subsidies would set the state markets into a death spiral, and that this could not have been the intent of Congress.

 

“The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a State’s individual insurance market into a death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner,” he wrote.

 

“The argument that the phrase ‘established by the State’ would be superfluous if Congress meant to extend tax credits to both State and Federal Exchanges is unpersuasive.

 

In a dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia lambasted the Obama administration for what he called the “somersaults of statutory interpretation” in the healthcare law.  

A total of about 34 states use the federal HealthCare.gov website, with an estimated 6.4 million people getting subsidies there that help them purchase insurance.

 

The Obama administration argued that conservatives were taking the four-word clause out of context and that those involved in drafting the law had intended the subsidies to be available in all states.

 

Roberts and the other justices joining his opinion agreed.

In his highly technical explanation that cites from a law dictionary, Roberts writes that the state and federal exchanges were intended to be the same.

“They must meet the same requirements, perform the same functions and serve the same purposes,” he wrote, adding that the law does not suggest that they would “differ in any meaningful way.”

Roberts also acknowledges the imperfect way that the Affordable Care Act’s language was drafted, in a nod to the plaintiffs’ arguments and the dissenting justices.

Citing the disputed clause in the law that says subsidies should go to exchanges “established by the state,” Roberts acknowledges “that’s a problem.”

But he then continues to defend the ultimate meaning of the law.

“The meaning of that phrase may not be as clear as it appears when read out of context.”

Roberts chose not to apply the framework of “Chevron deference,” which would have permitted an agency’s interpretations of an ambiguous statute, as some lawmakers and court-watchers had expected.

“Had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly,” Roberts wrote.

“It is especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS, which has no experience in crafting health insurance policy of this sort.”

 

In the final words of his opinion, Roberts appears to acknowledge the opposition that he will face for again upholding the embattled law.

“In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined,” he writes.

“That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case, we must respect the role of the Legislature and take care not to undo what it has done.”