The former senator who nearly blocked Obamacare in Congress may have just helped save it from the Supreme Court.
By now, you may have heard about King v. Burwell, the lawsuit brought by some of the Affordable Care Act’s conservative and libertarian critics. If successful, the lawsuit would cut off tax credits to millions of people currently buying insurance through the law’s new insurance “exchanges.” Without those tax credits, most of those people would have to give up insurance altogether, while prices for others could rise.
The legal dispute, which the Supreme Court will hear in March, isn’t about lofty principles of constitutional law. Instead, it’s about what the text of the statute really says and what members of Congress really meant when they voted for it.
–
Of course, what members of Congress actually believed during or immediately after Obamacare’s enactment may not ultimately matter. The ruling could turn entirely on the text itself — although here too, plaintiffs have a high burden to clear, because other passages of the law suggest the financial assistance should be available everywhere. Also, in cases where text is ambiguous, courts traditionally defer to the interpretation of executive branch agencies.
Whatever standard the justices decide to use when they hear this case, they’ll now have to reckon with the fact that a key authority in the plaintiff’s case — in effect, the lead witness for the prosecution — says the lawsuit is bunk.
