Skip to main content
Subscribe
  • Login
  • My Account
  • Logout
  • Register For Free
  • Subscribe
  • News
    • Current News
    • Providers
    • Insurance
    • Government
    • Finance
    • Technology
    • Safety & Quality
    • Digital Health
    • Transformation
    • ESG
    • People
    • Regional News
    • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Patients
    • Operations
    • Care Delivery
    • Payment
    • Midwest
    • Northeast
    • South
    • West
  • Blogs
    • AI
    • Deals
    • Layoff Tracker
    • HLTH 2024
    • Sponsored Content: Vital Signs Blog
  • Opinion
    • Letters
    • From the Editor
  • Events & Awards
    • Awards
    • Conferences
    • Galas
    • Virtual Briefings
    • Webinars
    • Nominate/Eligibility
    • 100 Most Influential People
    • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
    • 40 Under 40
    • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
    • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
    • Innovators Awards
    • Diversity Leaders
    • Leading Women
    • Best in Business Awards
    • The 2030 Playbook Conference
    • Innovations in Patient Experience
    • Leading Women Conference & Awards Luncheon
    • Leadership Summit
    • Workforce Summit
    • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
    • Diversity Leaders Gala
    • - Looking Ahead to 2025
    • - Financial Growth
    • - Hospital of the Future
    • - Value Based Care
    • - Looking Ahead to 2026
  • Multimedia
    • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
    • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
    • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
    • Sponsored Video Series - Checking In with Dan Peres
  • Data & Insights
    • Data & Insights Home
    • Hospital Financials
    • Staffing & Compensation
    • Quality & Safety
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Skilled Nursing Facilities
    • Data Archive
    • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
    • Surveys
    • Data Points
  • Newsletters
  • MORE+
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise
    • Media Kit
    • Jobs
    • People on the Move
    • Reprints & Licensing
    • Sponsored Content
MENU
Breadcrumb
  1. Home
  2. Government
February 27, 2015 11:00 PM

Reform law's fate will hinge on how justices interpret a few words

Lisa Schencker
  • Tweet
  • Share
  • Share
  • Email
  • More
    Reprints Print

    After months of nervous speculation, it's finally the U.S. Supreme Court's turn this week to consider the legal case that could solidify or savage President Barack Obama's landmark healthcare reform law.

    The justices on Wednesday will hear arguments in King v. Burwell, which turns on whether the language of the Affordable Care Act allows Americans in up to 37 states using the federal insurance exchange to receive premium tax credits. The Internal Revenue Service has interpreted the law to allow subsidies in all states. But the four individual plaintiffs challenging the rule say the ACA language is clear and that interpretation is wrong.

    Experts say ending premium subsidies in states with federal exchanges would cause millions of Americans to lose coverage and would severely disrupt the individual insurance market, potentially forcing the White House and Congress to renegotiate the law.

    Oral arguments could offer clues on how the justices might rule. Observers will be particularly watching the questions and reactions from Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, who are considered potential swing votes. The high court's ruling is expected in June.

    Here is a rundown of some of the key legal arguments likely to play out Wednesday.

    The meaning of six words

    Sect. 1401 of the ACA says the premium tax credits are based on premiums for plans offered through “an Exchange established by the State.” If the law's opponents have their way, the justices will focus solely on those six words.

    The challengers argue that phrase means the subsidies should be available only in states that have set up their own exchanges. The government counters that the phrase is a “term of art” that includes the federally established exchange. When read in context, the government argues, the law is clear in allowing subsidies in all states.

    Tim Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University, said the challengers will argue that those few words should be decisive in disallowing the subsidies, whereas the government will argue that the entire text of the law must be considered.

    At least four of the justices, led by Antonin Scalia, are often identified as textualists. They say the proper way to interpret a statute is to examine its language in context, rather than looking at legislative intent or history. Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito also tend to be textualists, said Todd Gaziano, a senior fellow in constitutional law with the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, which has filed a separate lawsuit challenging the ACA.

    Supporters of the ACA say a textual approach should produce a win for the Obama administration because the law as a whole supports subsidies in all the states. “Justice Scalia has been arguing for years that textualism is sophisticated and contextual, and what the challengers are arguing here is the opposite,” said Abbe Gluck, a Yale Law School professor. The challengers in the case argue that even when those six words are read in context, the law is still on their side.

    ACA objectives and structure

    ACA opponents claim Congress intended to limit subsidies to state-established exchanges to persuade all states to establish their own exchanges. But the government argues that the law's “text, structure, design and history” refutes that. The law's objective, the government says, was to ensure affordable coverage for all Americans and that the premium subsidies available in all states are part of a three-part structure to achieve that.

    But the challengers say Congress' intent doesn't matter. “Congressional intent is not the law,” said Michael Cannon, director of health policy studies for the libertarian Cato Institute and a key strategist behind the legal challenge.

    The meaning of “such”

    The government makes its own textual argument relying not on six words, but on two—“such exchange.”

    Sect. 1321 of the ACA says that if a state does not establish its own exchange, HHS' secretary shall “establish and operate such Exchange within the State…” The government argues that the “such exchange” language shows that state and federal exchanges are equivalent, and therefore premium subsidies should be available through both. The dictionary definition of the word “such” is “of the type previously mentioned.” Scalia has cited dictionary definitions in his opinions.

    “The reason 'such' is important is because it makes clear that what the federal government is doing is operating the state exchange,” Gluck said. “The Affordable Care Act does not mention or define anywhere the concept of a federal exchange. The only kind of exchanges that exist are state exchanges.”

    Nicholas Bagley, an assistant law professor at the University of Michigan who supports the law, said the words “such exchange” provide “a pretty good signal that Congress meant the federal government to step into the shoes of the state.” But Cannon said other parts of the law show that interpretation of “such exchange” is incorrect.

    The Chevron doctrine

    The justices are likely to consider applying an often-cited precedent for interpreting statutes that was established in the 1984 Supreme Court ruling in Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In that case, the court held that federal agencies must follow the letter of the law where the law is clear. But if a law is ambiguous, courts must defer to a government agency's reasonable interpretation of it.

    Both sides in the King case argue that the law is clear and not ambiguous, but they disagree about what its “clear” language says. A 4th U.S. Circuit of Appeals panel found that the ACA's language was ambiguous, applied the Chevron doctrine, and unanimously upheld the IRS' interpretation of the ACA.

    The legal standing issue

    In recent weeks, the Wall Street Journal and Mother Jones magazine have published reports questioning whether the four Virginia plaintiffs in the case have legal standing to bring their case before the federal courts.

    To have standing, the plaintiffs must show that they were injured by the law. They claim that because of the premium subsidies, they are being forced to buy health insurance. But the media reports have suggested that none of the four may fall under the law's mandate to buy coverage, either because their incomes are too low or because they may qualify for other coverage.

    Roberts and Scalia have emphasized the importance of standing in determining whether the federal courts have jurisdiction over a matter. Bagley predicted that the justices will ask questions about the plaintiffs' standing. But Jost doubted it will become an issue.

    It is possible the justices could ask for supplemental briefings about the standing issue after oral arguments, said Lisa McElroy, an associate professor of law at Drexel University. If the justices find that none of the plaintiffs have standing, she said, they could dismiss the King case without addressing its merits.

    Highlights from friend-of-the-court briefs

    Opposing the government's position

    Republican Sens. John Cornyn, Ted Cruz, Orrin Hatch, Rob Portman and Marco Rubio, and Republican congressmen Dave Camp and Darrell Issa: “The plain text of the ACA reflects a specific choice by Congress to make health insurance premium subsidies available only through 'an Exchange established by the State.' … The executive should not be able to accomplish through grasping agency rulemaking, and friendly judicial review, what it could not accomplish in legislative negotiations.”

    Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and West Virginia: “… the federal government's payment of a subsidy … triggers costly obligations for employers within that State (including the States themselves), placing such States at a competitive disadvantage in employment.”

    Supporting the government's position

    HCA Inc.: “… The consequences of Petitioners' interpretation are so absurd that Congress could not possibly have intended them.”

    American Hospital Association, Federation of American Hospitals, Association of American Medical Colleges and America's Essential Hospitals: “Petitioners' position, if accepted, would be a disaster for millions of lower- and middle-income Americans … That—emphatically—is not what Congress intended when it enacted a statute to create 'near universal coverage.' More importantly, it is not what Congress wrote.”

    California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia and 17 other states: “Congress did not give States clear notice that their citizens would be punished and their insurance markets ruined if the States chose (a federal exchange).”

    America's Health Insurance Plans: “… The lack of tax credits in the (federal exchanges) would alter the fundamental dynamics of those markets in a manner that would make insurance significantly less affordable even to those who would not rely on subsidies.”
    The opposing lawyers who will argue King v. Burwell

    U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.

    Verrilli, who became solicitor general in 2011, previously served as deputy counsel to President Barack Obama and as an associate deputy attorney general in the Justice Department. In 2012, he argued the case for the government in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Even though his delivery was widely criticized, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate by a 5-4 vote while allowing states to opt out of the law's Medicaid expansion.

    Michael Carvin

    Carvin, a partner at Jones Day in Washington, will argue for the four individual plaintiffs challenging the ACA. He was one of the lawyers who argued for ACA opponents in the 2012 NFIB v. Sebelius case before the Supreme Court. In addition, he was one of the lead lawyers who argued the presidential election recount case before the Florida Supreme Court in 2000 on behalf of George W. Bush.

    Follow Lisa Schencker on Twitter: @lschencker

    Letter
    to the
    Editor

    Send us a letter

    Have an opinion about this story? Click here to submit a Letter to the Editor, and we may publish it in print.

    Recommended for You
    Legal-government-0225
    HHS lawsuit by Democratic AGs aims to stop restructuring, layoffs
    GettyImages-654573744.jpg
    Federal watchdog to retract medical debt collection opinion
    Most Popular
    1
    New York-Presbyterian layoffs affect 2% of employees
    2
    Here are new state healthcare laws taking effect in 2025
    3
    Meet Modern Healthcare's 2025 Leading Women
    4
    Evernorth, Optum, CenterWell units buoyed insurers in Q1
    5
    What would Medicaid cuts look like? Missouri gave a preview
    Sponsored Content
    Modern Healthcare Alert: Sign up for this breaking news email to be kept in the loop as urgent healthcare business news unfolds.
    Get Newsletters

    Sign up for enewsletters and alerts to receive breaking news and in-depth coverage of healthcare events and trends, as they happen, right to your inbox.

    Subscribe Today
    MH Magazine Cover

    MH magazine offers content that sheds light on healthcare leaders’ complex choices and touch points—from strategy, governance, leadership development and finance to operations, clinical care, and marketing.

    Subscribe
    Connect with Us
    • LinkedIn
    • Twitter
    • Facebook
    • RSS

    Our Mission

    Modern Healthcare empowers industry leaders to succeed by providing unbiased reporting of the news, insights, analysis and data.

    Contact Us

    (877) 812-1581

    Email us

     

    Resources
    • Contact Us
    • Help Center
    • Advertise with Us
    • Ad Choices
    • Sitemap
    Editorial Dept
    • Submission Guidelines
    • Code of Ethics
    • Awards
    • About Us
    Legal
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • Privacy Request
    Modern Healthcare
    Copyright © 1996-2025. Crain Communications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
    • News
      • Current News
      • Providers
      • Insurance
      • Government
      • Finance
      • Technology
      • Safety & Quality
      • Digital Health
      • Transformation
        • Patients
        • Operations
        • Care Delivery
        • Payment
      • ESG
      • People
      • Regional News
        • Midwest
        • Northeast
        • South
        • West
      • Digital Edition (Web Version)
    • Blogs
      • AI
      • Deals
      • Layoff Tracker
      • HLTH 2024
      • Sponsored Content: Vital Signs Blog
    • Opinion
      • Letters
      • From the Editor
    • Events & Awards
      • Awards
        • Nominate/Eligibility
        • 100 Most Influential People
        • 50 Most Influential Clinical Executives
        • 40 Under 40
        • Best Places to Work in Healthcare
        • Healthcare Marketing Impact Awards
        • Innovators Awards
        • Diversity Leaders
        • Leading Women
        • Best in Business Awards
      • Conferences
        • The 2030 Playbook Conference
        • Innovations in Patient Experience
        • Leading Women Conference & Awards Luncheon
        • Leadership Summit
        • Workforce Summit
      • Galas
        • Best Places to Work Awards Gala
        • Diversity Leaders Gala
      • Virtual Briefings
        • - Looking Ahead to 2025
        • - Financial Growth
        • - Hospital of the Future
        • - Value Based Care
        • - Looking Ahead to 2026
      • Webinars
    • Multimedia
      • Podcast - Beyond the Byline
      • Sponsored Podcast - Healthcare Insider
      • Sponsored Video Series - One on One
      • Sponsored Video Series - Checking In with Dan Peres
    • Data & Insights
      • Data & Insights Home
      • Hospital Financials
      • Staffing & Compensation
      • Quality & Safety
      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Skilled Nursing Facilities
      • Data Archive
      • Resource Guide: By the Numbers
      • Surveys
      • Data Points
    • Newsletters
    • MORE+
      • Contact Us
      • Advertise
      • Media Kit
      • Jobs
      • People on the Move
      • Reprints & Licensing
      • Sponsored Content