The Supreme Court Should Review CEI’s Obamacare Subsidy Case

WASHINGTON, Oct. 15 — The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell filed their final brief this week at the Supreme Court level, responding to the government’s opposition to the Court taking this case. The brief can be found here, and CEI general counsel Sam Kazman said the following about the government’s opposition.

"A definitive ruling can only come from the Supreme Court and it’s needed now, not later. Billions of taxpayer dollars are already being distributed as subsidies of dubious legality, and individuals and companies are making insurance and employment plans based on Obamacare’s requirements; for that reason, invalidating the rule later rather than sooner would mean even greater national disruption," said Kazman. "Furthermore, if the Court decides against reviewing the King case based on the possibility that the en banc DC Circuit will overrule Halbig and thus eliminate the circuit split, then there’s still the clear likelihood that other circuits will still invalidate the IRS rule, as the Oklahoma district court did recently."

The new brief also points out, contrary to all of its prior filings, the latest government brief has absolutely no mention of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber or his “three-legged stool” metaphor for Obamacare—a figure of speech that the dissent in Halbig heavily relied on. In Mr. Kazman’s words, “where in the world is Jonathan Gruber?”

The Supreme Court could decide whether to review the Fourth Circuit’s ruling as early as November 3rd.  The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) is coordinating this case.