Chief Justice Roberts wrote the opinion in King v. Burwell, upholding subsidies on the ACA federal exchange.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the
Affordable Care Act provides for subsidies on the federal exchange. The
opinion (PDF), authored by Chief Justice John Roberts and joined by Associate Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor, is relatively short and to the point.
Prior to oral argument, I discussed the issues of textual interpretation, Chevron deference, and constitutional avoidance. The opinion addresses only the interpretation and Chevron deference questions.
First the court rejected the application of Chevron deference:
When analyzing an agency’s interpretation of a statute, we often apply the two-step framework announced in Chevron, 467 U. S. 837. Under that framework, we ask whether the statute is ambiguous and, if so, whether the agency’s interpretation is reasonable. Id., at 842–843. This approach “is premised on the theory that a statute’s
ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps.” FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 159 (2000). “In extraordinary cases, however, there may be reason to hesitate before concluding that Congress has intended such an implicit delegation.” Ibid. This is one of those cases. [My emphasis]
Thus, the court move forward to interpret the statute. In ruling in favor of the government, the court stated:
while the meaning of the phrase “an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031]” may seem plain “when viewed in isolation,” such a reading turns out to be “untenable in light of [the statute] as a whole.” Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc., 510 U. S. 332, 343 (1994). In this instance, the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase. [. . .] Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid. [My emphasis]
This decision is frankly, as good as could be hoped for progressives. There was no expansion of any federalism doctrine. In addition, by rejecting Chevron deference, the court has closed the book on interpretation of this provision of ACA. No future GOP Administration can reopen the question.
The dissent is from the usual suspects, Scalia, Alito and Thomas.