King v. Burwell, Halbig v. Burwell, Pruitt v. Burwell, and Indiana v. IRS are a set of related lawsuits challenging U.S. Treasury regulation, 26 C.F.R. § 1.36B-2(a)(1), issued under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The challengers argue that the text of the ACA only allows for subsidies on state-run exchanges, and that the regulation as implemented by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), providing for subsidies on state-run exchanges as well as federal exchanges, exceeded the authority Congress granted to it.
ON SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2013, OBAMA EXPRESSED HIS VIEW ON THE CASE:
We can’t rest until every American knows the security of quality, affordable health care. (Applause.)
In just over a week, thanks to the Affordable Care Act and the leadership shown by the CBC and others in Congress -- so many of you fought to pass this law -- thanks to your efforts, 6 in 10 uninsured Americans will finally be able to get covered for less than $100 a month.
Everybody is going to be able to get coverage; 6 in 10 will be able to get coverage for less than 100 bucks a month. (Applause.)
And by the way, the only reason it's 6 in 10 is because we've got some governors who -- (laughter) -- haven't seen the light yet.
If every governor chose to join this project rather than to fight it just to score some political points, that number would be nearly eight in 10. (Applause.)THIS IS NOT SOME HIRED GUN FROM MIT SAYING THAT THE SUBSIDIES ARE ONLY FOR THE STATE EXCHANGES.
THIS IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES SAYING IT ABOUT HIS SIGNATURE LAW - AND SAYING IT TEN DAYS BEFORE THE EXCHANGES WERE LAUNCHED.
THE SUPREME COURT IS GOING TO HEAR KING/HALBIG/PRUIT ON DECEMBER 17TH.
GIVEN THE WORDING OF THE LAW AND THE UNDERSTANDING PRESIDENT OBAMA HAD OF IT, THE COURT HAS NO CHOICE BUT TO DECIDE IN FAVOR OF KING/HALBIG/PRUIT AND DECIDE THAT THE LAW MEANS WHAT IT SAYS AND THAT THE IRS HAS NO LEGAL OR CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THE LAW AND APPLY THE SUBSIDY TO PEOPLE BUYING COVERAGE ON THE FEDERAL EXCHANGE.