Challengers Ask SCOTUS to Hear Obamacare Subsidies Case

Last week, two circuit courts split over legal challenges to the Obama administration's decision to allow subsidies in federally run exchanges under Obamacare.
A three judge panel in the D.C. Circuit ruled that the administration's implementation, authorized by an Internal Revenue Service rule, was illegal. A separate three judge panel from the Fourth Circuit ruled that the administration's approach was allowable under the law.
The challengers who lost in the Fourth Circuit have now appealed directly to the Supreme Court, asking the high court to resolve the issue as quickly as possible.
The petition, from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), which is coordinating the challenges, lays out the central question and the stakes involved:
Two Courts of Appeals have squarely divided over its facial validity. The resulting uncertainty over this major plank of ACA implementation means that millions of people have no idea if they may rely on the IRS's promise to subsidize their health coverage, or if that money will be clawed back. Employers in 36 states have no idea if they will be penalized under the ACA's employer mandate, or are effectively exempt from it. Insurers have no idea if their customers will pay for health coverage in which they enrolled, or if large numbers will default. And the Treasury has no idea if billions of dollars being spent each month were authorized by Congress, or if these expenditures are illegal. Only this Court can definitively resolve the matter; it is imperative that the Court do so as soon as possible.
The high court is under no obligation to hear the case, but will do so if four justices decide to grant certification. Challengers hope that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case as soon as possible. If the court does hear the case, a decision could come as early as next spring.
(Disclosure: I worked at CEI from summer 2005 through early 2007.)
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Aw, man. I thought that headline meant that SCOTUS asked to hear it, not was asked to hear it. The circus will be outstanding if they do, those old, white men.
Unclear. Apologies.
And now I look like an illiterate dick. Thanks, Suder-Man!
The squirrels will leave this comment alone.
Yeah. Actually, does the Supreme Court ever request to hear a case? Are they ever proactive? Do they ever use Proactiv?
Why am I asking you?
SCOTUS is entirely reactive. They do not seek cases.
SCOTUS is entirely reactive.
Like their colons.
P.S. - And semi-colons! *slaps knee*
Do they ever use Proactiv?
I hear Weigel should.
Oh right, that's the acne stuff. I was thinking of the yogurt culture stuff.
My comment above makes absolutely no sense...
OT:
Why is Drudge making a big deal about flat screen TVs in immigrant housing?
Can you even buy a tube television set any more?
Has Drudge even been to a best buy in the past decade?
Why not just say TVs?
Since it's a linked story, the original source should get your ire. Drudge just linked to it, innocently picking out a random fact from the article to put in the headline on his page at the very top in red letters.
Most of the people who read Drudge are of the age where they still enjoy their CRT televisions and, in their heart of hearts, prefer VHS to the movie cds that are big now.
I still jiggle my car keys to change the channel.
Most of the people who read Drudge are of the age
I read drudge....
It's "semi-automatic assault style rifle" for anti-immigration types. Using a word with a certain emotional connotation to push people harder in the direction they are already leaning.
I am not sure Drudge is anti-immigration.
He tends to link to stuff that MSM ignores. And his headlines are generally designed to piss off MSM more then attract an audience.
My thought are that Drudge is honestly out of touch about how ubiquitous flat screen TVs are....note the hat that he wears.
I don't know if Drudge is anti-immigration, but the majority of his readership sure is. The guy is trying to drive page-views.
Drudge has been stoking racial panic on the immigration thing for weeks. Have you not noticed? Did you catch the photo of the brown-skinned guys with crude tattoos all over their torsos?
Geraldo? Geraldo *Rivera*?
Drudge has been stoking racial panic on the immigration thing for weeks. Have you not noticed?
Apparently we don't read Drudge as religiously as you do.
Flat-screen = dog whistle.
That explains why you heard it.
Who knows? Maybe the court will READ WHAT IT SAYS!
It's just a typo, not the repeatedly stated intent by the authors of the bill.
Dude....
what if everything in Obamacare is a typo... except the part about subsidizes for state exchanges only?
Whoa....
My mind just blew up....
Whoa, indeed. 😎
What if the *SCOTUS decision* about it were a typo?
It's typos (and speakos) all the way down.
Between the lines, maybe.
Sometimes man you jsut have to roll with it.
http://www.WentAnon.tk
Do we really need the SC to rule on this? All we have to do is look to see what Obumbles position is and go the opposite way. That seems like a pretty reliable way to stay within the law.
According to this ( http://www.sfgate.com/business.....657904.php ) "Ninety percent of the 1.4 million people who selected a Covered California plan chose to get the premium tax credit in advance."
If that ratio holds for the rest of the states, and the ruling goes the way is should, there's gonna be a hell of a claw-back next year.