Posted on 07/18/2014 1:03:30 PM PDT by Ray76
Halbig is one of four cases challenging subsidies the Obama administration is issuing through health-insurance Exchanges established by the federal government under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The PPACA says those subsidies are authorized only through Exchanges “established by the State.” The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit could issue a ruling in Halbig at any time.
First, a few words on statutory interpretation.
Contrary to what Jost claims, neither I nor anyone else “presumes that ‘an Exchange established by the State under section 1311’ cannot include a fallback Exchange established on the state’s behalf by the federal government under section 1321.” (Emphasis added.) Of course Congress could have deemed federal Exchanges to be “established by the State.” Washington, D.C., for example, is not a state. Yet its Exchange is “established by [a] State” because the PPACA expressly defines the District as a “State” for purposes of Title I. The PPACA also expressly provides that any U.S. territory that “establishes such an Exchange…shall be treated as a State for purposes of [Section 1311].” Congress was very clear in both instances. There’s no reason it could not have deemed a federal Exchange to be “established by the State.”
The thing is—and this is the thing—Congress simply didn’t.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I keep hearing we’re expecting the decision, and yet, nothing...any ideas on when we might actually get the verdict? I’ve been hearing any day since early July.
Like everyone else, I’m waiting too.
It’s been announced for weeks now that we’ll get a decision on a certain day, and that day comes and goes without a word.
I've noticed. Strange, that.
Are they putting it off because it will be devastating to the dems? Or is that too much to hope for?
36B(b)(2) specifies the premium assistance amount is equal to the lesser of SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A) or SEC. 36B(b)(2)(B).
SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A) is explicitly specified as applying to an Exchange established by the State under 1311.
For SEC. 36B(b)(2)(B) to be given effect SEC. 36B(b)(2)(B) must necessarily also refer to Exchanges established by the State under 1311, otherwise 36B(b)(2) would be meaningless because a taxpayer can not be enrolled in both a state and federal exchange and whichever is the lesser amount applies.
The proposition that SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A) “Exchange established by the State under 1311 includes “Exchange established by the Federal government under 1321 is absurd. Equally ridiculous is that “Exchange established by the State under 1311 simply be read out of SEC. 36B(b)(2)(A).
Courts would have to do one or the other, introduce absurdities or read out of the statute clauses, in order for the act to satisfy what an agency, the IRS, claims is Congress’ intent. The law is not ambiguous or unreasonable, Congress’ intent is clear. There are no "errors" for the judiciary to correct.
The court can not reconstruct a statute to satisfy an agency’s claim.
The act explicitly provides tax credits for state-run exchanges and excludes such credits for federally run exchanges.
Let’s see if we get a ruling THIS week.....
They are delaying it for some reason. If they wait until after November, we’ll know why.
Not holding my breath just yet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.