Today, the petitioners in the Supreme Court case reviewing the Obamacare exchange-subsidies issue, King v. Burwell, filed their opening brief on the merits.
“From the outset of this case we have argued that the Obamacare statute clearly limits subsidies to exchanges established by states,” said Michael A. Carvin of Jones Day and lead counsel for the plaintiffs. “As set forth in the merits brief we filed today with the Supreme Court, our position is based primarily on the language of the statute. It is further supported by factors ranging from the law’s legislative history and lower court rulings to Jonathan Gruber’s recently rediscovered statements. We are hopeful that our arguments will prevail.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is coordinating and funding both the King v. Burwell case and the D.C. Circuit Halbig v. Burwell case.
“Obamacare is one huge issue, but this case also raises a fundamental question about the rule of law, specifically, which branch of government legislates,” said CEI general counsel Sam Kazman. “If agencies can disregard statutes—or make up the law as they go—in order to advance any White House agenda, then we lose a key constitutional safeguard against government tyranny.”
In King v. Burwell, the petitioners are challenging an IRS rule that provides subsidies to both state and federally-established exchanges. The petitioners argue the subsidies violate the law enacted by Congress, which restricted subsidies to only state exchanges when it passed Obamacare.