| King v. Burwell | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued March 4, 2015 Decided June 25, 2015 | |
| Full case name | David King, et al., Petitioners v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. |
| Docket no. | 14-114 |
| Citations | 576 U.S. 473 (more) 135 S. Ct. 2480; 192 L. Ed. 2d 483 |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through Exchanges established by the federal government under section 1321 of the ACA. | |
| Holding | |
| Section 36B of the ACA provides for subsidies under both federally run and state-run exchanges. The wording "...established by the State" was superfluous when read within "the broader structure of the Act". | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Thomas, Alito |
| Laws applied | |
| Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act | |
King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.
The petitioners had argued that the plain language of the statute provided eligibility for tax credits only to those persons in states with state-operated exchanges. The Court found the plaintiffs' interpretation to be "the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase."[1] Nevertheless, the Court found the statute as a whole to be ambiguous, and that "the pertinent statutory phrase" ought to be interpreted in a manner "that is compatible with the rest of the law." The majority opinion stated: "Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation. But those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. So it stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well."[1]