So - what happens if these lawsuits succeed?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@yorick73

Note that the case is Pruitt v. Burwell

Oops. Yes. Halbig is the plaintiff in the DC Circuit case. Not sure what I was doing there.

[Bricker]

@jayjay

Any Democrat who doesn’t use the phrasing “Republicans want you to stay sick and die” in their campaign ads in November doesn’t deserve to go to Congress.

I get the persuasive flavor – but the plaintiffs are not politicians (at least in the Halbig case). What could “Republicans” do to stop the lawsuit if they were so minded?

[Airbeck]

@Bricker

I get the persuasive flavor – but the plaintiffs are not politicians (at least in the Halbig case). What could “Republicans” do to stop the lawsuit if they were so minded?

Congress could correct the issue, rendering the lawsuits moot.

But the Republicans would never cooperate with that, would they? So acting like they are helpless here is pretty disingenuous.

[Bricker]

@Airbeck

Congress could correct the issue, rendering the lawsuits moot.

But the Republicans would never cooperate with that, would they? So acting like they are helpless here is pretty disingenuous.

You’re right: Congress could easily correct the issue.

[2ManyTacos]

Bricker, have you stated your opinion on these lawsuits so far? I’m not going to reread the thread to search for it, but given that you rejoiced at the Hobby Lobby decision, I’m honestly curious to hear your thoughts on this one too.

[jayjay]

@Airbeck

Congress could correct the issue, rendering the lawsuits moot.

But the Republicans would never cooperate with that, would they? So acting like they are helpless here is pretty disingenuous.

Not to mention that some of the plaintiffs are Republican state AGs. It’s all of a piece, anyway, although I hope that we’re finally getting to the point where being against the ACA is just a step too far for most of the electorate. Now that people are actually signed up and getting healthcare, pinning the taking away of it on the GOP (rightly) is hopefully a way to finally clean house some.

[Leaper]

Washington Post opinion column: Court Won’t Void the ACA Over Semantics

Of course, a court can do whatever they want, if they can properly defend their interpretation of the law, but it’s another data point regardless.

[Terr]

Oklahoma prevails in court challenge to Affordable Care Act's subsidies

A federal judge ruled in Oklahoma’s favor Tuesday in a lawsuit challenging part of the Affordable Care Act.

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has said that parts of the law do not apply to Oklahoma and other states that did not set up their own health insurance exchanges.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Richard_Parker

The question in this case is whether the IRS interpretation of the statute is reasonable, and not whether it is the *only *reasonable interpretation or even whether it is the *correct *interpretation.

The IRS interpretation is that 1321 empowers the feds to "(directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate *such *Exchange within the State.” 42 U.S.C. § 18041(c)(1) . And that “such Exchange” refers to a 1311 Exchange. That’s true in part because “such Exchange” has no other referent, and in part because Exchange is a defined term in the statute meaning an exchange set up under 1311. So I think there’s no serious argument there.

The anti-Obamacare challengers argue that the exchange must be “established by the State” and urge the courts to examine that language in a vacuum. But that’s not generally how statutory interpretation proceeds, much less statutory interpretation in which the question is which interpretations are reasonable rather than which is correct.

In short, the question is whether one reasonable reading of the language of the statute as a whole is that it provides subsidies for federal-run exchanges. The only serious argument to the contrary is the undefined verb “established by the State,” but when you put that up against all the other language that talks about the feds essentially replacing the state in every way if the states fails its obligations, and there being no very good reason for not offering the subsidies in 1311 exchanges established by the feds, I think the Administration is not too concerned.

That said, I think if this manages to persuade 5 Justices, the Clinton Administration will probably just let the red states sweat. Maybe they will be forced to set up exchanges, or at least those states might elect Democrats to fix the law. Sure, it could mess up the whole system if the federal exchanges don’t get subsidies, but they might just let it right for a couple of years first.

Take a bow, sir (except on your later characterization of the issue, since the court actually went to the merits of the interpretation rather than just deciding whether to defer.)

@Richard_Parker

I don’t think that interpretation reflects very well on the Congressional process here, and to some extent supports the GOP arguments that this thing was not sufficiently reviewed. So if that’s what the court ultimately decides, the lawsuit could be useful for PR purposes if nothing else.

You get a point for this prediction too.

[QUOTE=John Robers]
That is particularly true when, as here, “the Act is far from a chef d’oeuvre of legislative draftsmanship.”
[/QUOTE]