AFFORDABLE CARE ACT

Court may not save Obamacare again

 

ruthmarcus@wqshpost.com

Are healthcare consumers entitled to subsidies if they buy coverage on insurance exchanges established by the federal government, as they are from state exchanges?

Two federal appeals courts have reached contradictory conclusions — at least so far. (The Obama administration plans to ask the full federal appeals court for the District of Columbia Circuit Court to review the three-judge panel ruling against the subsidies, and that court is newly stocked with liberals.) Cases are headed to two other appeals courts.

Which adds up to: coming, eventually, to a Supreme Court near you. The justices, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, might prefer to duck the case — who needs the court embroiled in another Obamacare dispute? — but this might not be a realistic option.

The dispute involves perhaps the most consequential case of sloppy bill-drafting in congressional history. The section of the law outlining how subsidies are calculated refers specifically to an exchange “established by the state.” It doesn’t mention subsidies for the federal exchanges set up in those states (now 36) that opted not to establish their own.

Preventing federal exchanges from offering subsidies would cripple the law, driving up premiums as healthy enrollees drop coverage and sicker ones remain. It is implausible to think that a Congress that created federal exchanges as a back-up alternative to state marketplaces also intended them to fail. Yet the legislative language, taken alone, implies that outcome.

As the Richmond-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals conceded even as it upheld the subsidies, “If Congress did in fact intend to make the tax credits available to consumers on both state and federal exchanges, it would have been easy to write in broader language, as it did in other places in the statute.”

Nonetheless, the stronger legal argument is with the government. In context — and even Justice Antonin Scalia, the ultimate textualist, believes in looking at laws this way — it’s clear Congress could not have meant the provision to be so narrowly construed.

As you may have noticed, the stronger legal argument doesn’t always win at this Supreme Court. The four liberal justices are reliable votes in the government’s favor. Where is the fifth? Justice Anthony Kennedy believes the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional, but he might be moved by the plight of millions of people suddenly without affordable insurance.

A more likely candidate is Roberts, who has already rewritten the statute once in order to save it, in the 2012 ruling upholding the constitutionality of the individual mandate because it was a tax, not a penalty. Would he ride again to Obamacare’s rescue — not because he cares a whit about the law but to protect the court’s reputation?

Some smart people think so. “A major lesson to be learned from the court’s previous decision is that a majority of the justices do not want to determine the fate of a hugely important social issue,” Supreme Court super-litigator Tom Goldstein wrote for ScotusBlog.

Let’s hope they’re right, but I have my doubts.

Certainly, Roberts zealously guards the court’s institutional standing against accusations of overreaching. But only to a point. The Voting Rights Act offers an example. In 2009, Roberts, as with the Affordable Care Act, demonstrated his willingness to stretch the language of the statute in order to save it — temporarily. Four years later, he wrote the majority ruling striking down the law’s key provision.

Roberts’ initial restraint in that case, as in his ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, was based on constitutional considerations: the long-standing principle that the court, if possible, should avoid overturning the work of a coequal branch of government.

In the looming case about federal subsidies, which involves statutory interpretation (actually, whether the court should accept a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute), Roberts may be inclined to a less deferential stance.

Indeed, the two D.C. Circuit judges who invalidated the subsidies cast their decision in terms of the “legislative supremacy” of Congress and the need for judges to respect statutory language, not substitute their own judgment.

Last time around, Roberts was protecting the court from appearing to overstep its constitutional muscle. This case is different — and so, I fear, could be the outcome.

(c) 2014, Washington Post Writers

Group

Read more Other Views stories from the Miami Herald

  •  
 <span class="cutline_leadin">FANCY FOOTWEAR:</span> Gov. Rick Scott’s custom-made boots showing the five flags that have flown over Florida.

    GOVERNOR’S RACE

    Crist needs to fire up black voters

    Is Charlie Crist in danger of pulling an Alex Sink by narrowly losing to Rick Scott?

  •  
PARKER

    SOUTH CAROLINA

    Sanford’s ongoing saga with himself

    As a South Carolinian, it befalls me to examine the peculiarities afflicting our former governor and now-congressman Mark Sanford, who, contrary to decorum and taste, continues to demand attention.

  •  
NORIEGA

    BRAZIL POLITICS

    Can Marina Silva shock the status quo?

    A few months ago, incumbent president Dilma Rousseff appeared to be coasting toward reelection despite a flagging economy. However, in August, political maverick Marina Silva was thrust into the spotlight of Brazil’s presidential campaign after the death of her running mate. Pledging to reform the country’s dysfunctional politics and jumpstart the economy with free-market reforms, Silva has surged to a tie with Rousseff in recent polls.

Miami Herald

Join the
Discussion

The Miami Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere on the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

The Miami Herald uses Facebook's commenting system. You need to log in with a Facebook account in order to comment. If you have questions about commenting with your Facebook account, click here.

Have a news tip? You can send it anonymously. Click here to send us your tip - or - consider joining the Public Insight Network and become a source for The Miami Herald and el Nuevo Herald.

Hide Comments

This affects comments on all stories.

Cancel OK

  • Marketplace

Today's Circulars

  • Quick Job Search

Enter Keyword(s) Enter City Select a State Select a Category