It was a development that stunned Washington.
Friday, the Supreme Court said it would review ObamaCare, again.
This time because the IRS rewrote the law, all on its own.
This case is critical. If the Supreme Court rules against ObamaCare, it would strike down the law’s most important elements.
President Obama would have to go back to the drawing board, this time dealing with a conservative majority in Congress.
At the ACLJ, we’re filing a critical amicus brief at the Supreme Court.
Join this brief.
Join the ACLJ as we hold the Obama Administration and the IRS accountable, as we put ObamaCare to the test once again.
WASHINGTON — The most serious challenge to President Obama’s health care law since it survived the Supreme Court by a single vote in 2012 isn’t a balky website, public opinion or the Republican takeover of Congress. It’s the Supreme Court — again.
In a case likely to be heard in March and decided in June, the justices will dissect the meaning of four words on page 95 of the 906-page Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — four words that could render health insurance premiums unaffordable for millions of Americans.
Here’s a look at the issues in King v. Burwell:
Question: Why the fuss over four words?
Answer: The law states that tax credits will be available through so-called exchanges, or online marketplaces, “established by the State.” When it was being crafted, it was assumed that all 50 states would create their own exchanges. After it passed in March 2010, it became clear that many states would rely on the federal government to operate them, as the law allows.
In 2012, the Internal Revenue Service made the subsidies available in all states. The law’s challengers claim they cannot be offered in exchanges operated by the federal government. Thirty-six states fit into that category. Without subsidies, insurance costs would skyrocket.
Q: Do the challengers have other arguments?
A: To back up their claim that Congress meant what it said — that it wasn’t simply a drafting error — the law’s opponents say lawmakers purposely made tax credits available only in state-run exchanges as an incentive for governors and legislatures to create their own exchanges. Otherwise, the argument goes, their residents would get cheated out of a major benefit.