Shikha Dalmia on Why the Supreme Court Shouldn't Bail Out Obamacare Yet Again
The Supreme Court once again faces the unenviable task of deciding Obamacare's fate. It heard oral arguments on

the legality of IRS's decision to hand subsidies through federal exchanges last week. Plaintiffs claim that the law authorizes these subsidies only through state, not federal, exchanges. Supporters argue this would make the law unworkable, hardly something that Congress could have intended.
Beyond the statutory arguments, Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia notes that the two sides are also making federalism claims. But instead of trying to sort out who has the better statutory/constitutional argument, the Supremes should opt for the course that requires the least amount of meddling, even if that threatens the law as written.
Hide Comments (0)
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 commentsMute this user?
Ban this user?
Un-ban this user?
Nuke this user?
Un-nuke this user?
Flag this comment?
Un-flag this comment?