"[30] In an article on Forbes, Jost pointed out that his original law journal article proposed "several alternatives through which Congress could encourage the states to establish exchanges, one of which was to limit the availability of tax credits to states that operate exchanges. By choosing instead to resolve the ambiguous language of the statute by looking at the purpose of the statute as a whole rather than by applying the Chevron doctrine, the Court's decision precludes the possibility of the IRS reversing in the future its decision to have subsidies available on the federally run exchange. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. Let us not forget that the term “Exchange established by the State” appears twice in §36B and five more times in other parts of the Act that mention tax credits. . If a state “elects” not to create an Exchange, or creates an Exchange that does not satisfy federal requirements, then § 1321 of the ACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to “establish and operate such Exchange within the state.” By the ACA’s deadline, sixteen states and the District of Columbia had created a state-run exchange, leaving the other thirty-four states with federally-run exchanges. And those effects would not be limited to individuals who purchase insurance on the Exchanges. . of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever.
Please try again later. She was the daughter of Thomas Murray Sr. (1725-1895) and Henrietta Maria Jones (1728-1760). If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. To add a flower, click the “Leave a Flower” button. Ordinary connotation does not always prevail, but the more unnatural the proposed interpretation of a law, the more compelling the contex- tual evidence must be to show that it is correct. Id., at 36–38. [16] On November 7, 2014, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the King case. To view a photo in more detail or edit captions for photos you added, click the photo to open the photo viewer. Over 150 years have passed and the land has changed hands many times. So it stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.4. (2) (a) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer's spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, [...][24], (a) In general. Assn. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the fourth circuit. See Affordable Care Act, §1253, redesignated §1255, 124 Stat. Judge Edwards dissents. Brief for Petitioners 20; post, at 4–5. Burwell's' parents, Kirby and Uroth King, either traveled with them or migrated to the area shortly thereafter. Halbig v. Burwell, 758 F. 3d 390, 394 (2014). × Oops, we were unable to send the email. establish an American Health Benefit Exchange”—a marketplace where people can shop for health-insurance plans. No one suggests, for example, that the first-time-homebuyer tax credit, §36, is essential to the viability of federal housing regulation. Of course not. Resultantly, citizens with preexisting conditions, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians, would not receive affordable insurance plans. Circuit shared jurisdiction over any issue involving a Federal agency based in Washington, D.C. On September 4, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. On the other hand, the government argues that the ACA’s legislative history demonstrates that the tax credit would be available in every state; for example, the expressions by congressional members, when the statute was under consideration, that the tax credit would be available in all Exchanges. This figure was based on earlier studies of the impact of the Massachusetts health care reform law on death rates in that state. 42 U. S. C. §1396w–3(b)(1)(D). For reasons explained below, we find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. On the other hand, the government and its amici argue that if the Court determines that the IRS cannot provide tax credits for federally-run exchanges, then the ACA transforms into a coercive statute that also inappropriately alters the federalism balance. Had the Court bothered to look at the rest of the Tax Code, it would have seen that the structure it finds strange is in fact quite common.

How could the Court say that Congress would never dream of combining guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements with a narrow individual mandate, when it combined those requirements with no individual mandate in the context of long-term-care insurance? The word “such” does not help the Court one whit. How could a State control the type of electronic interface used by a federal Exchange?

Otherwise, the Federal Exchange, by definition, would not be an “Exchange” at all. We have 2 volunteers within fifty miles of your requested photo location. The tax credits are among the Act’s key reforms, involving billions of dollars in spending each year and affecting the price of health insurance for millions of people. Moreover, it is a flaw that appeared as well in other parts of the Act. King contends that the plain text of the ACA clearly establishes that tax-credit subsidies are only available for state-run Exchanges and the IRS’s regulation granting tax-credit subsidies for both state and federal Exchanges runs contrary to this plain meaning.

But in 2006, Massachusetts added two more reforms: The Commonwealth required individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty, and it gave tax credits to certain individuals to ensure that they could afford the insurance they were required to buy. 131, 163 (2013).

. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) ", It further noted that in 2006 "Massachusetts discovered a way to make the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements work—by requiring individuals to buy insurance and by providing tax credits to certain individuals to make insurance more affordable." If a State chooses not to follow the directive in Section 18031 that it establish an Exchange, the Act tells the Secretary to establish “such Exchange.” §18041. [27], (1) "First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. The Frontline documentary the Untouchables and the failures of the Obama Administration to hold accountable […], Simon Lazarus of Constitutional Accountability Center explains why it is so absurd that the Supreme Court is taking King V Burwell. . Moreover, King submits, the legislative history demonstrates that this language was adopted, in part, to gain the votes of “centrist Senators” who were apprehensive about the federally-run Exchanges. Thomas died there in 1805 at the age of 80, nine years after the area had became part of Tennessee, the 16th state in the Union. [63] The Supreme Court denied certiorari before judgment on January 26, 2015. At any rate, the provisions cited by the Court are not particularly unusual. [71], In a dissent joined by Justices Thomas and Alito, Justice Scalia wrote: "The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says 'Exchange established by the State it means 'Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.' We have set your language to Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Act’s limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case on March 4, 2015. See, e.g., §18031(b)(2) (allowing a State to create “one Exchange . Just as the Affordable Care Act directs States to establish Exchanges while allowing the Secretary to establish “such Exchange” as a fallback, the Elections Clause directs state legislatures to prescribe election regulations while allowing Congress to make “such Regulations” as a fallback. 42 U. S. C. §18031(b)(1). The Court emphasizes that if a State does not set up an  Exchange, the Secretary must establish “such Exchange.” §18041(c). But §36B does not come remotely close to satisfying that demanding standard. Try again later. In addition,  §36B awards a credit with respect to insurance plans “which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent . The Act directs States to screen children for eligibility for “[tax credits] under section 36B” and for “any other assistance or subsidies available for coverage obtained through” an “Exchange established by the State.” 42 U. S. C. §1396w–3(b)(1)(B)–(C). Imagine that a university sends around a bulletin reminding every professor to take the “interests of graduate students” into account when setting office hours, but that some professors teach only undergraduates. You may not upload any more photos to this memorial, This photo was not uploaded because this memorial already has 20 photos, This photo was not uploaded because you have already uploaded 5 photos to this memorial, This photo was not uploaded because this memorial already has 30 photos, This photo was not uploaded because you have already uploaded 20 photos to this memorial.
Indeed, the legal principle here is one of basic statutory construction – i.e., if a statute is ambiguous, a court can look to other sources, like legislative intent, to resolve the ambiguity. And it is especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS, which has no expertise in crafting health insurance policy of this sort." The government therefore contends that a federal Exchange established by the HHS is the same as a state-established Exchange. A separate part of the Act—housed in §36B of the Internal Revenue Code—grants “premium tax credits” to subsidize certain purchases of health insurance made on Exchanges. The predicate for the dissent’s point is therefore uncertain at best.The dissent also notes that a different part of the Act “established a long-term-care insurance program with guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements, but without an individual mandate or subsi- dies.” Post, at 14. Having found the text ambiguous, the Court, citing United Sav. . That means we are governed by the terms of our laws, not by the unen- acted will of our lawmakers. By 1999, 17 of the State’s 19 private insurers had left the market, and the remaining two had announced their intention to do so. Hancock County had been created from parts of Claiborne/Hawkins Counties and Sneedville was chosen as the county seat.

In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an “Exchange established by the State.” The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State.