King v. Burwell on March 4th. Court observers said the Justices are likely to issue their opinion by the end June.
The case, which challenges the legality subsidies to consumers in states that don’t operate state marketplaces, is the only one scheduled for oral arguments on that date. This would allow the court to extend arguments beyond the standard one- limit.
In their opening brief, those contesting the legality the subsidies call the case “extraordinarily straightforward.”
The case centers the interpretation a single phrase in the law, stating that subsidies are to be paid to those who enroll “through an exchange established by the state.”
The challengers say that means anyone enrolling through the federal exchange, or thought state marketplaces facilitated by the federal system, is not eligible for a subsidy.
If the Justices agree with this position, the loss subsidies would make Obama administration.
The administration argues that the clear meaning Congress was to make subsidies available in every state. They point to other sections the law that presume subsidies are available to people in states served by the federal.
The has interpreted the law to mean insureds in every state are eligible for subsidies.