Breaking.
Scalia, Alito and Thomas dissent.
Here are the opinions:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/...
Majority rules that language was ambiguous; therefore, legislative intent can be examined. Federal subsidies necessary for the law to work.
In a democracy, the power to make the law rests withthose chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of thelegislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.
Scalia:
The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says “Exchange established by the State” it means “Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government.” That is of course quite absurd, and the Court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.
Five more cases to be decided this term. Marriage, Redistricting, Lethal Injection, EPA and Mandatory Minimum Sentences. Likely 2 tomorrow and 3 on Monday.