No ‘case precedence’ for states that REFUSED the funds having some kind of claim because people in those states are’t eligible for tax credits…is there?
Is that a lawyer thing, where you just dote on leading and open-ended questions?
I mean, since the whole ACA thing is a pretty newish idea, can’t really expect there to be much case law about it, yes? You could find similar situations and refer to court decisions, but they would be similar, not precisely the same.
And you know how some guys can be, parsing minor semantic distinctions till you need a stiff drink.
Asked about case law for states refusing funds resulting in loss of tax credits for their residents; none of these concepts are unique to the ACA or new.
Don’t think that’s the route they’d take, they would probably want to go with the argument they hadn’t been sufficiently notified; in fact that’s what several states *did *claim in an amicus brief for the en banc hearing of Halbig v Burwell. You can find the brief here (it’s worth the read): http://www.atg.wa.gov/uploadedFiles/Home/News/Press_Releases/2014/Brief%20of%20Virginia%20as%20amicus%20curiae%20(Halbig%20v%20Burwell)-FINAL.PDF
If the court decides to entertain their objection this also becomes an issue of federalism as well as statutory interpretation, a point I think Roberts in particular would be more sympathetic towards.
The plaintiff filed their brief at the court last Monday, it’s pretty much what they’ve been arguing all along just with the Gruber videos thrown in, more for the audience at home than the court. One problem I see is that they’re hanging their hats on much of the DC court’s language in the Halbig ruling. The way that ruling was worded, though, opens a loophole to keep the tax subsidies flowing.
No, here I am. 
Look, my argument is basically stated in the OP.
Given the background & history of the maniacs who concocted this lawsuit; given their stated end goals; given conservatives blatant politicization of the Court over this; & given the complete dearth of Congressional evidence to back it up, I’m basically saying that the entire lawsuit is a total sham entirely devoid of merit. That’s the biggest reason why SCOTUS will lose all of its institutional authority if it sides with the plaintiffs; there’s absolutely nothing objective or legitimate about the King argument whatsoever.
Now, that isn’t to say I don’t appreciate what Richard Parker is doing. IANAL, after all, so I’ve no problem if others want to go ahead & make the legal case for why King is completely insane. I just broadly think that such an action affords the lawsuit far more legitimacy than it deserves.
You’re right about the motives of the plaintiffs, particularly cynical was the “plaintiff” (=front-man) in Halbig, who was going to have to pay $20 this year (YEAR, not month) and their remedy is to strike down billions of dollars in subsidies so he won’t have to pay the $20.
Nevertheless, the case is not legally frivolous, courts have been rather strict in interpreting what Congress writes and looking at other some of the other cases they’ve heard it’s not totally surprising they’d take this one. The difference is that this one has huge political and economic ramifications. I see two realistic outcomes: they’ll either uphold King (but probably not getting there the way the government would like) or, less likely, issue a ruling similar to the original Halbig case at the DC circuit. In either circumstance the tax credits could continue, though if they ruled similar to Halbig it would require a lot of extra red tape, workarounds, and a period of probably half a year until those who lost their subsidies could get them back (that’s probably why they’ll just uphold King, it creates enormously fewer headaches and better resolves the inconsistencies in the bill).
The only alternative would be blatantly political: the court would have to rule that the law should be interpreted down to the last letter in the tax code section but then go around and say it shouldn’t be interpreted the same way in other parts of the bill. They could do that, given tax credits are held to a somewhat higher standard of unambiguity, but I seriously seriously doubt Roberts will want such a brazenly partisan decision on his hands that would cement the court’s reputation as a political arm for one party. People weren’t paying attention so much when he gutted other laws, but the whole world will be watching them on this one. Prediction is King will be upheld 6-3, maybe more, Roberts is going to try and get as many justices on board with him as he can.
Still, that analysis brings up the question: If the Court is most likely to uphold King anyway, then why would it agree to hear the case at all? That’s one of the reasons why so many people are skeptical about SCOTUS’s intentions WRT this issue; there was no circuit split, so they shouldn’t have had to have agreed to take this case at all.
Other than the obvious reason of “the sooner the better” because of the billions of dollars involved, one possible reason is because the federalism angle hasn’t been brought up in any of the courts so far, all of them have just considered it as a statutory Chevron type case. One reason for granting a writ is because a constitutional question has gone unanswered, which would be the case here if they thought the lower courts have been overlooking something important. If it is a case of a state’s right to know what it’s getting into there’s not many (if any) cases similar to this one that revolve around individuals getting tax credits instead of the state itself, and a definitive answer to such a question needs to come from the Supreme Court itself. If it were a simple case of Chevron deference then I think yes, they would probably have just let it make the rounds, whether the plaintiffs had won or lost.
Remember we have no idea of who those 4 votes were to take the case. It could be the original 4 who wanted to strike down the entire law and see this as a second chance, stare decisis be damned, it could be Roberts because he wants to re-view this case from a different perspective, hell it could have been that Ruth Ginsburg woke up that morning and wasn’t feeling so well, nobody outside the court knows. Many are thinking they took the case so they can reverse King, but still, even when they want to reverse cases they let them play out in the lower courts first.
There was a circuit split.
Actually not really, the Halbig decision at the DC Circuit had been granted an en banc hearing, which put their initial ruling on hold. Now if the en banc decision would have been upheld then there would have been a circuit split, that’s why this is an unusual request, because they took it pre-emptively. Until the Supreme Court decided to step in it was working its way through the courts in the usual manner.
An en banc hearing by the DC circuit, which was just appointed by President Obama, courtesy of Sen. Reid and the nuclear option? Yeah, right.
Yes, but every one of those victims will be a poetic tribute to … something: the value of grammatical care in legislation, perhaps, or to the wisdom of Ayn Rand.
Look, pople die everyday and most of us may be dead one day. Would you rather die randomly on the highway, or be a glorious martyr to American Freedom, to the Power of the Majority to rule us all (even when that Power manifests as inadvertant loopholes)? I think patriotic Americans will be happy to see their compatriots be martyred for such a worthy cause.
You truly are a lefty idealist if you’re naive enough to think American voters would be able to connect those dots. More likely is that any problems with Obamacare, even those resulting from deliberate sabotage, will be blamed on the same people that brought us the Holocaust in Benghazi.
Great, I’m glad you’ve read the bill. Can you tell us your opinion of how you reconcile Section 1312 with the language in 1311 and 1321 and how that should apply to 1401? Would you agree with the DC Circuit Court’s panel opinion or do you have a different take on it?
What can I add to that, I’m just speechless.
That should have no bearing whatsoever on the Court’s decisions; those DC Circuit judges were legitimately appointed just like every other judge. Cut the crap.
There’s no requirement for a circuit split before the Supremes grant cert. it’s true that a circuit split is a reliable indicator, but the reverse isn’t true. The Court takes up plenty of cases where there’s no split. Every state court decision that rests on federal constitutional grounds, for example.
And the Supreme Court was likewise legitimately appointed, and their grant of cert is legitimately within their powers, right?
That’s not a very compelling argument. Surely the relevant question is how often they take up cases from the federal courts of appeals when the panel decision creating the split is going to be reviewed en banc. I would guess the answer is: very very seldom, if ever.
(Which is not to say I agree that this suggests something untoward has happened. Indeed, I think there’s a decent chance that one or more of the “liberal” justices thought resolving this issue now was a good idea, since the ideological motivations behind the suit would surely mean that it would be litigation in every circuit until a split was created.)
ISTM that it might also be possible that time is an issue as well. If the court was to make an earthshattering ruling blocking the subsidies, it might be in everyone’s interests to have that ruling come down sooner rather than later.
That’s the most obvious reason, it makes more sense than the notion of 4 radical right-wing judges are up there foaming at the mouth to see the ACA taken down whatever the cost. I personally think it’s for a variety of reasons, time is one of them (though the subsidies have already been flowing for a year), a desire to see this from devolving into a political circus is another. Another possible reason is if one judge friendly to the government’s position should somehow become unavailable the government would still win with a 4-4 tie.
There are serious problems that start arising when you take every letter of the bill literally and out of context. The problems don’t start with “established by the State”, they start in 1312 where they define a qualified individual as a “person residing in the State that established the Exchange”. A plain reading of that passage means a federal exchange can’t exist (yet section 1321 clearly creates them), and when you start coming up with ways to explain away 1312 so many other problems start popping up the bill starts drifting into the realm of absurdity.
Do you mean the states weren’t given fair notice when they failed to establish exchanges? That’s a hard sell, considering that virtually all of the state plaintiffs alleging that they didn’t have notice of this (alleged) quirk in the law are the ones vigorously pushing it.
“Now that we’ve told you about it, it’s unconstitutional because you didn’t tell us about it!”
Anyway, this thread is stupid. The IRS’ interpretation will be upheld, but there is clearly room for debate on this issue. The real question remains: what the hell is CATO’s endgame? They’ll just be fucking over red states.