Four reasons from the article:
1. The plain text of the statute denies subsidies to people who live in states without an exchange.
2. There was no split in the circuits; the lower courts actually seemed to accept the Obama administration’s misreading of its own law.
3. I assume Chief Justice Roberts is with the original four dissenters from Sebelius two years ago in opposing the administration.
4. The Court will be acting in agreement with, rather than against, majority wishes.
The article is not completely accurate. The law provides IRS subsidies to those enrolled in exchanges ESTABLISHED by the state. About 15 states established their own exchanges. The rest didn’t and by the wording of the law, residents of States without their own are not eligible for tax credits, but the IRS is giving them to them anyway.
Obama ignores the words “established by the states,” and that’s what this lawsuit is about. He, of course, claims the all knowing and all powerful Federal Government is
“The state.” Although you won’t find the Feds referred to as “the state” anywhere in the Constitution or other law.