King v Burwell and the Administrative State

[Peter1469]

King v. Burwell is know as the Obamacare case because the primary issue is whether the law says that only state exchanges can offer tax rebates to customers. Well that is what it says. And it never should have gotten to the Supreme Court.

But it is at SCOTUS, and now the issue is whether our Constitutional separation of powers will prevail or whether the Administrative State will be further cemented. Our Founders never intended for the Executive Branch to use regulatory authority to replace the judicial and legislative branch.

On March 4, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell, a lawsuit that challenges the Internal Revenue Service's implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Specifically, the lawsuit asserts that the PPACA limits federal subsidies to health insurance purchased from state-run health care exchanges, while the IRS has determined that federal subsidies are available for purchases on all health care exchanges-including those established by the federal government. While the decision in King v. Burwell will directly affect the ill-crafted health care law, its longer term implications will reverberate well beyond the PPACA, potentially redefining the broader constitutional balance between branches of government.

***

While King v. Burwell is popularly framed as an assault on ObamaCare that will disenfranchise millions, it must be remembered that it is the PPACA that is the problem. This case is not an attempt to overturn the PPACA, but rather a demand that the PPACA be enforced as written. And as the PPACA is written, plenty of people are denied subsidies. In fact, the lack of subsidies for federal exchanges can be construed as a strong incentive specifically included in the legislation so that states would create their own exchanges. That states failed to establish their own exchanges suggests they knowingly deferred to federal exchanges with a full understanding that they would be forgoing subsidies. Simply because the incentive failed to achieve the desired result, the IRS does not have the authority to rewrite the legislation to make it more inclusive-that is the sole purview of Congress.

[Newpublius]

Well they could look to legislative intent of course, but its funny because there's actually evidence that the subsidies were offered to induce the states to actually set up their own exchanges. Fourth Circuit sided with the IRS and the Supreme Court granted cert without a conflict, that seems to indicate 4 justices are going to vote to overturn the 4th circuit, of course it DOES take 5!

[Peter1469]

And the Chief Justice comes from Corporate America so we may see the Administrative State prevail.

[Peter1469]

Update: Oral arguments were today, and the justices appeared to be sharply at odds. The OP covers the basic conflict well.

The Supreme Court was sharply divided Wednesday in the latest challenge to President Barack Obama's health overhaul, this time over the tax subsidies that make insurance affordable for millions of Americans.


The justices aggressively questioned lawyers on both sides of what Justice Elena Kagan called "this never-ending saga," the latest politically charged fight over the Affordable Care Act.


Chief Justice John Roberts said almost nothing in nearly 90 minutes of back-and-forth, and Justice Anthony Kennedy's questions did not make clear how he will come out. Roberts was the decisive vote to uphold the law in 2012.


Otherwise, the same liberal-conservative divide that characterized the earlier case was evident.

[Bob]

From what I hear/read, oral arguments really don't do much to the outcome ... either way. No doubt the media will make a big deal of Roberts relative silence.

[Peter1469]

From what I hear/read, oral arguments really don't do much to the outcome ... either way. No doubt the media will make a big deal of Roberts relative silence.

The issues have been fully briefed at that point. I think the justices use it as a way to communicate with each other. By their questions, other justices see their train of thought.

[Bob]

The issues have been fully briefed at that point. I think the justices use it as a way to communicate with each other. By their questions, other justices see their train of thought.

I too have heard that.

[Peter1469]

7 things to know about Burwell: The link provides good background on the case.

1. The IRS’s draft rule originally included the statutory language restricting tax credits to Exchanges “established by the State,” but IRS officials deleted it and inserted broader language when political appointees approached them about it.

2. IRS officials knew the statute did not authorize them to issue tax credits in federal Exchanges, but they decided to issue them anyway for political reasons.

3. The IRS performed little or no analysis of the statute or legislative history, and it failed to consider important dimensions of the issue.

4. The IRS offered almost no explanation for its decision.

5. The IRS waited five months after the final rule was issued, and after it had been challenged in court, before identifying any supposed statutory support.

6. The deletion of “established by the State” from the proposed rule and the insertion of “or 1321” contradict two separate arguments the government offers before the Supreme Court — and reveal those arguments to be post-hoc rationalizations.

7. IRS officials tried to hide their reasoning from the public.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...well-michael-f

[Crepitus]

Well they could look to legislative intent of course, but its funny because there's actually evidence that the subsidies were offered to induce the states to actually set up their own exchanges. Fourth Circuit sided with the IRS and the Supreme Court granted cert without a conflict, that seems to indicate 4 justices are going to vote to overturn the 4th circuit, of course it DOES take 5!

Evidence?

[Peter1469]

Evidence?

His post seems convoluted; but the entire point is congress intended that states enact the exchanges; the law reflected that by giving tax breaks only to state exemptions: now activists are asking SCOTUS to rewrite the law to include federal exchanges.

This thread covers it pretty well.

Does our Constitution yield to the administrative state.