In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled on June 25th that it is legal for government subsidies under the Act to be available to all Americans, as the Obama administration had argued.
Plaintiffs in the landmark King v. Burwell case had argued that the subsidies should only be given to residents states that had “established” their own exchanges or online markets for, as a phrase in the 0-page law indicated.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., writing for the majority, acknowledged that the wording the law was problematic, but declared that “Congress passed the Act to improve 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.”
Other justices concurring in the opinion were Anthony M. Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
The has interpreted the law to allow subsidies in all states. Historically, when includes language that is unclear or ambiguous, the court has deferred to regulatory agencies to implement these portions the . Lower courts had ruled that the was within its authority to allow the subsidies nationwide.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. dissented. Justice Scalia said the majority ruling was based on “somersaults statutory interpretation” the statute, and added, “we should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
Scalia noted that the court had previously thrown a lifeline to the by ruling that its mandates are a form , even though the administration had argued that they were not. The two cases “will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites, he wrote.”