This is HUGE!
By David Henderson
We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly. But, high as those stakes are, the principle of legislative supremacy that guides us is higher still. Within constitutional limits, Congress is supreme in matters of policy, and the consequence of that supremacy is that our duty when interpreting a statute is to ascertain the meaning of the words of the statute duly enacted through the formal legislative process. This limited role serves democratic interests by ensuring that policy is made by elected, politically accountable representatives, not by
appointed, life-tenured judges.
Thus, although our decision has major consequences, our role is quite limited: deciding whether the IRS Rule is a permissible reading of the ACA. Having concluded it is not, we reverse the district court and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment to appellants and vacate the IRS Rule.
This is from Jacqueline Halbig, et al vs. Appellants, decided today by the United States Court of Appeals by a 2-1 vote.
More on it here.
Whatever you think of ObamaCare, it’s a huge triumph when a Court tells the IRS that, no, you can’t just ignore the legislation when you develop your regulations.
Congratulations to Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon.