King v. Burwell
The Supreme Court has the final word on the meaning of federal legislation. The Court’s interpretation of a statute binds all other courts unless Congress subsequently changes the law. This term, the Court construed several federal laws, including in some very high-visibility cases such as King v. Burwell. [Read our Preview here.] In that case, the Court interpreted specific language within the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or “Obamacare.” Specifically, language inserted within § 36B of the tax code provides certain tax benefits to holders of insurance policies purchased “through an Exchange established by the State.” Those tax benefits are crucial to the overall financial incentive structure of the ACA. The question before the Court, then, was whether policy holders qualified for those tax benefits if they purchased their insurance through the federal exchange in the thirty-four states that had opted out of establishing their own state exchange. Writing for a 6-3 majority, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “Had Congress meant to limit tax credits to state exchanges, it likely would have done so in the definition of an ‘applicable taxpayer’ or in some other prominent manner.” Noting that the ACA “contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting,” he reasoned that Congress “would not have used such a winding path of connect-the-dots provisions about the amount of the credit” if its intent was to limit the credit to only the state-established exchanges and not the federal exchange, too.