United States: Sharp Questions Dominate Supreme Court Oral Arguments Regarding The Challenge To The Availability Of ACA Premium Tax Credits

On March 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the highest profile challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) since the Supreme Court's 2012 decision to uphold the law. The oral arguments featured sharp questioning of both sides. A decision is anticipated in June to determine whether the high court will maintain the status quo with respect to the availability of premium tax credits to lower-income exchange customers in all states.

The Issue

The plaintiffs in King seek to invalidate a May 2012 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule providing that health insurance premium tax credits will be available to all taxpayers nationwide, regardless of whether they obtain coverage through state-based exchanges or federally funded exchanges (FFEs).1 The plaintiffs argue that the plain language of the ACA limits the availability of premium tax credits to health care insurance plans purchased through state exchanges. Only 13 states and the District of Columbia have established state exchanges for 2015;2 the other 37 states will use FFEs in 2015.3 The plaintiffs' argument is based on statutory language providing that premium tax credits are available only for health care plans that are "enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the [ACA]."4

Case History

In 2013, two groups of individual taxpayers brought lawsuits contending that the IRS rule violates the plain language of the ACA. The government successfully defended the IRS rule before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (in Halbig v. Burwell) and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (in King) by asserting that the plaintiffs' isolation of a phrase in the statute was inconsistent with the legislative history, structure and purpose of the ACA. The plaintiffs appealed both decisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the Fourth Circuit, respectively. On July 22, 2014, in Halbig,5 a divided three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit struck down the IRS rule and held that the plain language of the ACA clearly restricted the availability of premium tax credits to consumers purchasing insurance through state-based exchanges. On that same day, a unanimous panel in the Fourth Circuit upheld the same IRS rule in King,6 concluding that it must defer to the government's reasonable interpretation of the ACA reflected in IRS rule under Chevron.7 Although the D.C. Circuit agreed to rehear Halbig en banc, which potentially could have rectified the circuit split, the Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' petition to hear King.

The Oral Argument at the Supreme Court


Although Justice Ginsburg raised the issue of standing within the first few seconds of the argument by Michael Carvin, counsel for the plaintiffs, the issue was brushed aside by the other justices and seems unlikely to be addressed by the Supreme Court. The government did not challenge the plaintiffs' standing in its brief, and on the record before the Supreme Court there is no question that the challengers have standing. Mr. Carvin, counsel for plaintiffs, represented that there had been no factual change that would affect standing, and the Supreme Court appeared satisfied with his representation.


The questions to Mr. Carvin primarily focused on two issues. First, Justices Breyer, Kagan, Ginsburg and Sotomayor repeatedly questioned Mr. Carvin concerning other provisions in the ACA that the government contends support its interpretation of the statute, read as a whole. In their questions, those justices made clear that they supported the government's interpretation of the statute. Justice Breyer, in particular, outlined the statutory case in support of the government's interpretation, noting that Section 1321 of the ACA required the federal government to establish "such Exchange within the state"8 in those states that did not do so—and that this language effectively meant that the back-up FFEs were "established by the State" for purposes of the Act.

Second, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Kennedy asked whether the plaintiffs' interpretation necessarily raised a serious constitutional question; specifically, they inquired whether the ACA (so read) unconstitutionally coerced the states into establishing exchanges in view of the very severe consequences flowing from their failure to do so. If so, that could implicate the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, under which a court—if confronted with two plausible interpretations of a statute—should choose the interpretation that would avoid the potential conflict with the U.S. Constitution.


Like the questioning of counsel for the plaintiffs, the justices' questioning of Solicitor General Donald Verrelli focused primarily on the meaning of the statute and whether the plaintiffs' challenge implicated the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. As to the former, Justices Scalia, Alito and Kennedy expressed—to varying degrees—skepticism regarding the government's interpretation of the statute. In particular, Justice Scalia repeatedly emphasized that it is not unusual for Congress to enact a poorly designed statute that produces unfortunate results, and that a statute should not be given an unreasonable interpretation in order to avoid unfortunate results.

As to whether plaintiffs' interpretation triggered the doctrine of constitutional avoidance because it resulted in the ACA coercing the states, Justice Alito observed that only six of the states that do not have state-based exchanges had made that argument. In other words, if the ACA were coercive by withholding tax subsidies from the residents of those states failing to establish exchanges, most of the states so coerced were not complaining about it. Justice Kennedy, however, quite directly stated that if plaintiffs' argument is correct, the ACA coerces states to establish exchanges because declining to do so "is just not a rational choice." That in turn, he observed, would trigger the doctrine of avoidance.

Finally, the solicitor general was questioned by the justices regarding the government's alternative argument that the IRS's interpretation of the statute was entitled to deference under the Chevron case, under which courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous federal statutes. Justices Kennedy and Alito observed that applying Chevron deference here would conflict with the Supreme Court's cases holding that the tax code is to be construed narrowly against tax credits and deductions. Chief Justice Roberts—in his only merits-related statement of the entire argument—observed that, if Chevron applies here, the next presidential administration presumably could reverse course and withdraw tax subsidies for health plans purchased on the FFEs.

Potential Impact of a Ruling for the Plaintiffs

The Supreme Court is anticipated to render its decision by late June. If the Supreme Court strikes down the IRS rule as contrary to the ACA, that would have significant financial consequences for millions of U.S. citizens receiving premium tax credits through the FFEs, which would reverberate throughout the entire health insurance market.


The vast majority (87 percent) of individuals selecting health care plans in the 37 states using the FFEs in 2015 qualify for premium tax credits.9 Insurers are concerned that a Supreme Court ruling that such insureds are ineligible to receive premium tax credits, whether or not it goes into immediate effect, may prompt consumers to drop their coverage mid-year. Insurers are already locked into their rates for 2015 and it is unclear whether insurers would be allowed to withdraw from the FFEs mid-year. During oral argument, Justice Alito noted that the Supreme Court could mitigate some of the immediate impact of such a ruling by delaying its implementation so that the states using the FFEs could set up exchanges, in order to preserve their citizens' access to premium tax credits.


One study has concluded that, if the Supreme Court rules against the government, about 9.3 million people living in FFE states would no longer receive subsidies by 2016.10 That study also projects that such a ruling would increase the number of uninsured people by 8.2 million, leaving only less-healthy consumers in the individual insurance marketplace and driving up 2016 average premiums 35 percent, a so-called health insurance "death spiral."11

Because the Supreme Court will likely rule after insurers have made their regulatory filings for their 2016 health plans, some insurers are contemplating proposing alternative plan offerings and two different sets of rates—one for each potential outcome—with the intention to drop certain offerings before they are finalized. The Department of Health and Human Services has not publicly discussed any contingency plans. Three Republican senators pledged that they have a plan to provide financial assistance for a transitional period to individuals who may lose subsidies.12 Nevertheless, one can only speculate about what—if anything—Congress and the administration would do in that event.


1.ACA § 1401(a), codified at 26 U.S.C. § 36B(c)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis added).

2. Thirteen states (plus the District of Columbia) have implemented and will run their own State-Based Exchanges: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington for 2015. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Issue Brief: Health Insurance Marketplace 2015 Open Enrollment Period: January Enrollment Report for the Period: Nov. 15, 2014 – Jan. 16, 2015, 25–26 (Dep't Health & Human Serv. Jan. 27, 2015) [hereinafter HHS Report].

3. The 37 states using the FFEs for 2015 include (a) the seven partnership Exchange states (Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire and West Virginia); (b) the 27 states whose Exchanges will be run fully by the FFEs in 2015 (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming); and (c) the three states whose State Based Exchanges will use the FFEs website platform for 2015 (Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon). Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Issue Brief: Health Insurance Marketplace 2015 Open Enrollment Period: January Enrollment Report for the Period: Nov. 15, 2014 – Jan. 16, 2015, 25–26 (Dep't Health & Human Serv. Jan. 27, 2015) [hereinafter HHS Report]. At the time of the appellate decisions in King and Halbig, 36 states used the FFEs in 2014: (a) the seven above-mentioned partnership Exchange states; (b) 27 states whose Exchanges were run fully by the FFEs in 2014; and (c) two states whose state-based Exchanges were supported by the FFEs website platform for 2015 (Idaho and New Mexico.). Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Issue Brief: Health Insurance Marketplace: January Enrollment Report for the Period: Oct. 1, 2013 – Feb. 1, 2014, 22–24 (Dep't Health & Human Serv. Feb. 12, 2014). For 2015, Idaho is running its state-based Exchange but Nevada and Oregon are using

the FFEs website platform. HHS Report at 25–26. The D.C. and Fourth Circuits made no distinction in the application of their rulings between those states operating under the FFEs with state assistance versus those states whose exchanges are fully run by the FFEs.

4.ACA § 1401(a), codified at 26 U.S.C. § 36B(c)(2)(A)(i) (emphasis added).

5.Halbig v. Burwell, 758 F.3d 390 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

6.King v. Burwell, 759 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. 2014).

7.Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

8.42 U.S.C. § 18041(c)(1).

9.Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Issue Brief: Health Insurance Marketplace 2015 Average Premiums After Advance Premium Tax Credits Through January 30 in 37 States Using the Healthcare.gov Platform, 2 (Dep't Health & Human Serv. Feb. 9, 2015).

10.Linda J. Blumberg, Matthew Beuttgens and John Holahan, The Implications for a Supreme Court Finding for the Plaintiffs in King v Burwell: 8.2 Million More Uninsured and 35% Higher Premiums, Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/2000062-The-Implications-King-vs-Burwell.pdf, Jan. 2015, at 5.

11.Id. at 6.

12.Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Op-Ed, We have a plan for fixing health care, Wash. Post, Mar. 1, 2015.

Sharp Questions Dominate Supreme Court Oral Arguments Regarding The Challenge To The Availability Of ACA Premium Tax Credits

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions