Obamacare Loses Major Court Battle

[silverscreenselect]

The DC Court of Appeals ruled today in a 2-1 decision that Obamcacare subsidies (and over 80% of people purchasing insurance through the exchanges receive subsidies) are only available in the 14 states (plus DC) that established their own exchanges. In the other 36 states, the federal government established the exchange when the states failed to do so (in most cases because of an opposition to Obamacare). In these states, under this ruling, the government may not subsidize the cost of the insurance under the current law, and individuals would have to pick up the entire tab.

The ruling hinges upon a section that of the law that says that subsidies are available for those purchasing through exchanges "established by a State." Since the federal government established these exchanges, they don't qualify. The ruling goes against two other Circuit Court decisions.

The next step in the case is probably an appeal to the entire DC circuit to rehear the case. The two judges on this panel who were in the majority were appointed by Presidents Bush Sr. and Jr., while the dissenting judge was appointed by President Carter. The entire DC panel consists of seven judges appointed by Democratic presidents and four appointed by Republicans. An appeal of the eventual decision to the Supreme Court is also likely.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... ml?hpid=z1

[Bob Juch]

I do not consider this to be a "Major Court Battle". Only Faux News will.

[earendel]

The 4th circuit disagrees. Their ruling was that "a rule issued by the Internal Revenue Service was 'a permissible exercise of the agency's discretion.'" This one will undoubtedly end up before the Supreme Court.

[silverscreenselect]

The 4th circuit disagrees. Their ruling was that "a rule issued by the Internal Revenue Service was 'a permissible exercise of the agency's discretion.'" This one will undoubtedly end up before the Supreme Court.

Because this is not a constitutional question, but only a question of interpretation of federal law, the Supreme Court can only hear the case if there is a split among the circuits. That's why the administration is probably going to appeal to the entire DC Court of Appeals rather than directly to the Supreme Court. If the DC Court rules in their favor (and with a 7-4 division of judges on the circuit, that's fairly probable), there would no longer be a split among the circuits and the Supreme Court wouldn't have jurisdiction to hear the case.

[macrae1234]

They have also already ruled on this issue and the Supreme Court has made clear — and as the Fourth Circuit reiterates in its opinion — a federal law should not be interpreted by reading a single line out of context. Rather, “a reviewing court should not confine itself to examining a particular statutory provision in isolation” as the “meaning—or ambiguity—of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context

[Bob78164]

The 4th circuit disagrees. Their ruling was that "a rule issued by the Internal Revenue Service was 'a permissible exercise of the agency's discretion.'" This one will undoubtedly end up before the Supreme Court.

Because this is not a constitutional question, but only a question of interpretation of federal law, the Supreme Court can only hear the case if there is a split among the circuits. That's why the administration is probably going to appeal to the entire DC Court of Appeals rather than directly to the Supreme Court. If the DC Court rules in their favor (and with a 7-4 division of judges on the circuit, that's fairly probable), there would no longer be a split among the circuits and the Supreme Court wouldn't have jurisdiction to hear the case.

That's not accurate. It is true that as a matter of policy the Supreme Court usually won't consider issues of statutory interpretation in the absence of a circuit split, but there's no jurisdictional or other legal bar to the Court doing so. --Bob

[BackInTex]

Because this is not a constitutional question, but only a question of interpretation of federal law, the Supreme Court can only hear the case if there is a split among the circuits. That's why the administration is probably going to appeal to the entire DC Court of Appeals rather than directly to the Supreme Court. If the DC Court rules in their favor (and with a 7-4 division of judges on the circuit, that's fairly probable), there would no longer be a split among the circuits and the Supreme Court wouldn't have jurisdiction to hear the case.

That's not accurate. It is true that as a matter of policy the Supreme Court usually won't consider issues of statutory interpretation in the absence of a circuit split, but there's no jurisdictional or other legal bar to the Court doing so. --Bob

Geesh! Even two liberal bored lawyers can't agree. There is no hope!

[silverscreenselect]

The 4th circuit disagrees. Their ruling was that "a rule issued by the Internal Revenue Service was 'a permissible exercise of the agency's discretion.'" This one will undoubtedly end up before the Supreme Court.

Because this is not a constitutional question, but only a question of interpretation of federal law, the Supreme Court can only hear the case if there is a split among the circuits. That's why the administration is probably going to appeal to the entire DC Court of Appeals rather than directly to the Supreme Court. If the DC Court rules in their favor (and with a 7-4 division of judges on the circuit, that's fairly probable), there would no longer be a split among the circuits and the Supreme Court wouldn't have jurisdiction to hear the case.

That's not accurate. It is true that as a matter of policy the Supreme Court usually won't consider issues of statutory interpretation in the absence of a circuit split, but there's no jurisdictional or other legal bar to the Court doing so. --Bob

You're right; it's been a long time since I studied this in law school. Congress does establish the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and in the case of appeals from state courts, the law is very specific as to which cases the Supreme Court may grant certiorari (a discretionary review of a lower court decision). However, for U.S. courts of appeal, the law is much more general. It just says that the court may review a case "by writ of certiorari granted upon the petition of any party to any civil or criminal case, before or after rendition of judgment or decree."

The Supreme Court has set internal guidelines for certiorari in its own rules (which it is free to change at any time), which it says is granted only for "compelling reasons." Those rules aren't even, by their own words, binding but are rather guidelines. That's where the rule about resolving conflicts between courts of appeal (or between a court of appeal and a state Supreme Court) come into play. The rule also says the Court can grant certiorari if: "a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court, or has decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of this Court."

Most cases that get to the Supreme Court are conflict certiorari since decisions of the Courts of Appeal are binding in that circuit, so people could be faced with the prospect of a tax law meaning one thing in Florida and another in California.

The Aereo decision is an example of the Supreme Court deciding a case in which there was, at the time, no split among the Courts of Appeal, since Aereo had won all the cases brought in lower courts.

[flockofseagulls104]

Geez, Why are they wasting our time and taxpayer money on all this? It has already been established that Obamacare is whatever the hell Obama says it is on any given day. There is absolutely no mention of Federal Exchanges in the actual law that was passed, but that doesn't matter, they went ahead and set 'em up anyway. Who needs laws? Why even bother to write them down. We know what the intention was.

Under the new post-constitutional USA, we just do what we need to do when we need to do it. And if it comes down to a fight, we will just give it to one or two 'judges' to decide the matter 350 million people. And if the party in power doesn't like what's happening, they can find a judge who will pop up out of nowhere and just declare something or other 'unconstitutional' base on some stupid contortion of logic. Laws don't matter.....

If we would just get with the program, it would save a whole bunch of red tape....

[silverscreenselect]

Geez, Why are they wasting our time and taxpayer money on all this? It has already been established that Obamacare is whatever the hell Obama says it is on any given day. There is absolutely no mention of Federal Exchanges in the actual law that was passed, but that doesn't matter, they went ahead and set 'em up anyway. Who needs laws? Why even bother to write them down. We know what the intention was.

It's good to know you're headed to Oregon where everyone thinks the same way you do.

[flockofseagulls104]

Despite the sarcastic tone, what have I stated that is not true? Obama changes the 'law', that was passed by Democratic votes only, whenever it suits him, even though he has no authority to do so. Extensions here, exemptions there, who cares? Let's make up the federal exchanges because so many states aren't going to go along with us. So what?

We are fast becoming a Banana Republic.

[Spock]

SSS re Flock>>>It's good to know you're headed to Oregon where everyone thinks the same way you do.<<<

Not sure where in Oregon he is heading-but he would probably be pretty much at home in the eastern 2/3 of Oregon.

[silverscreenselect]

SSS re Flock>>>It's good to know you're headed to Oregon where everyone thinks the same way you do.<<<

Not sure where in Oregon he is heading-but he would probably be pretty much at home in the eastern 2/3 of Oregon.

I checked and Medford is part of the Second Congressional District in Oregon (the state has five Congressional districts), which contains the entire eastern part of the state. It's the only district that currently has a Republican Congressman.

[Spock]

SSS re Flock>>>It's good to know you're headed to Oregon where everyone thinks the same way you do.<<<

Not sure where in Oregon he is heading-but he would probably be pretty much at home in the eastern 2/3 of Oregon.

I checked and Medford is part of the Second Congressional District in Oregon (the state has five Congressional districts), which contains the entire eastern part of the state. It's the only district that currently has a Republican Congressman.

To

The eastern 2/3 (Medford, possibly) are essentially interior west in politics and economy etc.

To occupy my mind while driving through the area, I was designing new states that make better sense geographically than what we have now.

A couple I came up with.

1) Eastern Oregon with southern Idaho.

2) Western Montana-wherever one draws that line-with the Idaho Panhandle-about as far down as Sun Valley area= and probably the portions of Idaho in the Yellowstone area.

[jarnon]

There is absolutely no mention of Federal Exchanges in the actual law that was passed, but that doesn't matter, they went ahead and set 'em up anyway.

Aw shucks, Flock. You can't be expected to read and remember every word of a 974-page law. You must have overlooked §1321(c):

Code: Select all

FAILURE TO ESTABLISH EXCHANGE OR IMPLEMENT REQUIREMENTS.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—If—
   (A) a State is not an electing State under subsection (b); or
   (B) the Secretary determines, on or before January 1, 2013, that an electing State—
      (i) will not have any required Exchange operational by January 1, 2014; or
      (ii) has not taken the actions the Secretary determines necessary to implement—
         (I) the other requirements set forth in the standards under subsection (a); or
         (II) the requirements set forth in subtitles A and C and the amendments made by such subtitles;
the Secretary shall (directly or through agreement with a not-for-profit entity) establish and operate such Exchange within the State and the Secretary shall take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.

[geoffil]

SSS is a lawyer? I did not know that.

[flockofseagulls104]

"Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states," wrote Judge Thomas Griffth, who was joined in the majority decision by Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph on the case known as Halbig v. Burwell.
"We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly."

SECTION 36B of OBAMACARE

b) Premium assistance credit amount
For purposes of this section—
(1) In general
The term “premium assistance credit amount” means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year.
(2) Premium assistance amount
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

[BackInTex]

SSS is a lawyer? I did not know that.

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

[Bob Juch]

"Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states," wrote Judge Thomas Griffth, who was joined in the majority decision by Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph on the case known as Halbig v. Burwell.
"We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly."

SECTION 36B of OBAMACARE

b) Premium assistance credit amount
For purposes of this section—
(1) In general
The term “premium assistance credit amount” means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year.
(2) Premium assistance amount
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Yes, but then there's 1321(c)(1) which says that if the State does not set up an exchange, that the secretary shall “establish and operate such Exchange within the State.”

[Beebs52]

"Section 36B plainly makes subsidies available in the Exchanges established by states," wrote Judge Thomas Griffth, who was joined in the majority decision by Senior Circuit Judge Raymond Randolph on the case known as Halbig v. Burwell.
"We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up their own Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly."

SECTION 36B of OBAMACARE

b) Premium assistance credit amount
For purposes of this section—
(1) In general
The term “premium assistance credit amount” means, with respect to any taxable year, the sum of the premium assistance amounts determined under paragraph (2) with respect to all coverage months of the taxpayer occurring during the taxable year.
(2) Premium assistance amount
The premium assistance amount determined under this subsection with respect to any coverage month is the amount equal to the lesser of—
(A) the monthly premiums for such month for 1 or more qualified health plans offered in the individual market within a State which cover the taxpayer, the taxpayer’s spouse, or any dependent (as defined in section 152) of the taxpayer and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under 1311 [1] of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Yes, but then there's 1321(c)(1) which says that if the State does not set up an exchange, that the secretary shall “establish and operate such Exchange within the State.”

But if that's true, it still isn't an exchange established by the state, right? It's established by the feds. Or am I missing something?

[jarnon]

But if that's true, it still isn't an exchange established by the state, right? It's established by the feds. Or am I missing something?

That's where the judges disagree. One side says "exchange established by the state" should be taken literally. The other side says the state and federal exchanges are equivalent, and every provision of the law is meant to apply to both, whether or not the provision says so explicitly.

[Beebs52]

But if that's true, it still isn't an exchange established by the state, right? It's established by the feds. Or am I missing something?

That's where the judges disagree. One side says "exchange established by the state" should be taken literally. The other side says the state and federal exchanges are equivalent, and every provision of the law is meant to apply to both, whether or not the provision says so explicitly.

I understand that is the dispute, just didn't see where BobJ's quote clarified anything. Just possibly repeated one side's interpretation.

[silverscreenselect]

But if that's true, it still isn't an exchange established by the state, right? It's established by the feds. Or am I missing something?

What is missing here is the fact that the IRS, which is the agency responsible for administering and enforcing the statute, chose to interpret the language of the statute to include both exchanges established by the state and those established by the federal government. When a federal agency interprets a federal statute, a court will normally go along with the agency's interpretation, unless the language of the statute clearly and unambiguously indicates the agency is wrong. Courts rarely overrule agencies on statutory interpretation unless there's no other way to read the statute, and they look at the statute as a whole and not an isolated phrase or sentence.

What the Fourth Circuit looked at was language that said that if a State failed to establish an exchange, the Federal government was required to "establish and operate such Exchange within the State." Under this interpretation, the federal government is stepping in and creating the state Exchange. Since both interpretations are plausible, and there was no indication Congress intended the language to apply only to state exchanges (which would deprive millions of people of health insurance coverage), and, in fact, all the history indicated that Congress did intend the Act to apply as widely as possible, the Fourth Circuit went along with the IRS's position.

Ironically, the primary Supreme Court case in this area involved Chevron back in the 1980s when the EPA under Reagan loosened up the requirements to comply with emissions laws, in essence, allowing Chevron to meet less stringent standards than under the Carter administration. The Supreme Court said that as long as the EPA's interpretation was reasonable and not clearly wrong, courts should go along with that. As a result, enforcement of a whole lot of federal laws often changes from one administration to the next, depending on the political philosophy of those running the agency.

By the way, the Fourth Circuit decision was 3-0. Two of the judges on the panel were appointed by Obama. The third, who wrote the majority opinion, was originally appointed by Clinton in December 2000 (right before his term expired), then reappointed by Bush Jr. in 2001.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

I'm just a bill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyeJ55o3El0

According to SSS, Nancy P was right, we have to pass it to know what's in it.

[flockofseagulls104]

Beebs52 wrote:
But if that's true, it still isn't an exchange established by the state, right? It's established by the feds. Or am I missing something?




What is missing here is the fact that the IRS, which is the agency responsible for administering and enforcing the statute, chose to interpret the language of the statute to include both exchanges established by the state and those established by the federal government. When a federal agency interprets a federal statute, a court will normally go along with the agency's interpretation, unless the language of the statute clearly and unambiguously indicates the agency is wrong. Courts rarely overrule agencies on statutory interpretation unless there's no other way to read the statute, and they look at the statute as a whole and not an isolated phrase or sentence.

What the Fourth Circuit looked at was language that said that if a State failed to establish an exchange, the Federal government was required to "establish and operate such Exchange within the State." Under this interpretation, the federal government is stepping in and creating the state Exchange. Since both interpretations are plausible, and there was no indication Congress intended the language to apply only to state exchanges (which would deprive millions of people of health insurance coverage), and, in fact, all the history indicated that Congress did intend the Act to apply as widely as possible, the Fourth Circuit went along with the IRS's position.

Ironically, the primary Supreme Court case in this area involved Chevron back in the 1980s when the EPA under Reagan loosened up the requirements to comply with emissions laws, in essence, allowing Chevron to meet less stringent standards than under the Carter administration. The Supreme Court said that as long as the EPA's interpretation was reasonable and not clearly wrong, courts should go along with that. As a result, enforcement of a whole lot of federal laws often changes from one administration to the next, depending on the political philosophy of those running the agency.

By the way, the Fourth Circuit decision was 3-0. Two of the judges on the panel were appointed by Obama. The third, who wrote the majority opinion, was originally appointed by Clinton in December 2000 (right before his term expired), then reappointed by Bush Jr. in 2001.

What's missing here is the fact that there most probably is a REASON that the state did not set up an exchange. It was probably not an oversight, or something someone missed, but BECAUSE THEY SPECIFICALLY DIDN'T WANT TO. And there are what, 36 of them? Maybe that should have been considered before this monstrosity was 'passed'.