On Wednesday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell the case challenging the IRSs decision to pay subsidies to lower-income health insurance buyers in states with federal insurance exchanges -- even though the Obamacare legislation authorizes subsidies only in states with exchanges established by the state.
The Obama administration is thus in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the presidents signature law says what it doesnt say. Nevertheless initial analyses of the oral argument suggest the government might win.
The four Democratic-appointed judges seemed determined to advance arguments that if you look at the statute as a whole Congress wanted to pay subsidies to lots of people even if it didnt say so. A similar argument was made with considerable invective in a dissent in an identical case by D.C. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards a Democratic-appointed judge who otherwise during a long career encouraged consensus and civility in a once-rancorous court.
Justice Anthony Kennedys questions suggested there may be a fifth vote to uphold the administrations position. Justice Kennedy asked whether the established by the state provision might amount to an unconstitutional commandeering of the state governments.
Commandeering is legal shorthand for the widely agreed doctrine that Congress cannot command the states to adopt legislation. Instead Congress typically offers the states money if they accept certain conditions. No highway and transportation money if you dont establish a 55 mile-per-hour speed limit for example or a minimum drinking age of 21.
Limiting subsidies as the Obamacare statute does to states that establish their own exchanges is thus not unusual; its typical of how Congress gets states to do what it wants. But there are limits.
In the June 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare the Supreme Court also ruled 7-2 that Obamacare could not compel states to vastly increase Medicaid spending or lose all Medicaid funds. Raising the ante the court held amounted to commandeering.
Did Justice Kennedys questioning Wednesday indicate that he believes that the disparate treatment of states with and without state health care exchanges amounts to commandeering? Perhaps though justices questions are not always good guides to their ultimate conclusions.
But if it was does that mean that Justice Kennedy would allow the IRS to read into the statute authorization of subsidies? Or does it mean that he would regard the provisions for subsidies in some states and not in others as null and void? We wont likely know until the decision comes down probably in late June.
But beyond the legal issues the very existence of King v. Burwell is remarkable politically. For the framers of Obamacare certainly did not expect 36 states to reject the blandishment of federal subsidies and refuse to set up state exchanges.
MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber explained why in a now-famous videotaped talk back in 2012. If youre a state and you dont set up an exchange that means your citizens dont get their tax credits he said. If your governor doesnt set up an exchange youre losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens.
When the videotapes surfaced last year Gruber said that he had misspoken like a typo. But obviously he was just reading the statute as written and obviously he expected that the states would find federal money too tempting to resist.
That expectation was based on some knowledge of history. Over the last half-century states have usually been willing to jump through Congresss hoops in order to receive supposedly free federal money.
For example after Medicaid was passed in 1965 37 states joined the program within two years and by January 1970 only two held out -- Alaska which joined in 1972 and Arizona which held out until 1982. In the 1980s as Congress (largely through the backroom work of Henry Waxman) increased the states required Medicaid spending many governors grumbled but no state dropped out of the program.
In contrast after the Supreme Court let states reject Obamacares Medicaid expansion 22 states did so. And 36 states refused to set up state health insurance exchanges despite Obamacares established by the state language.
Governors and legislators are responsive to public opinion and their increased willingness to forego federal dollars shows an increasing mistrust of centralized command-and-control government. Thats going to be a continuing factor in politics and government whichever way King v. Burwell goes.
Michael Barone senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com) is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
On Wednesday the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell the case challenging the IRSs decision to pay subsidies to lower-income health insurance buyers in states with federal insurance exchanges -- even though the Obamacare legislation authorizes subsidies only in states with exchanges established by the state.
The Obama administration is thus in the uncomfortable position of arguing that the presidents signature law says what it doesnt say. Nevertheless initial analyses of the oral argument suggest the government might win.
The four Democratic-appointed judges seemed determined to advance arguments that if you look at the statute as a whole Congress wanted to pay subsidies to lots of people even if it didnt say so. A similar argument was made with considerable invective in a dissent in an identical case by D.C. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards a Democratic-appointed judge who otherwise during a long career encouraged consensus and civility in a once-rancorous court.
Justice Anthony Kennedys questions suggested there may be a fifth vote to uphold the administrations position. Justice Kennedy asked whether the established by the state provision might amount to an unconstitutional commandeering of the state governments.
Commandeering is legal shorthand for the widely agreed doctrine that Congress cannot command the states to adopt legislation. Instead Congress typically offers the states money if they accept certain conditions. No highway and transportation money if you dont establish a 55 mile-per-hour speed limit for example or a minimum drinking age of 21.
Limiting subsidies as the Obamacare statute does to states that establish their own exchanges is thus not unusual; its typical of how Congress gets states to do what it wants. But there are limits.
In the June 2012 National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius decision upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare the Supreme Court also ruled 7-2 that Obamacare could not compel states to vastly increase Medicaid spending or lose all Medicaid funds. Raising the ante the court held amounted to commandeering.
Did Justice Kennedys questioning Wednesday indicate that he believes that the disparate treatment of states with and without state health care exchanges amounts to commandeering? Perhaps though justices questions are not always good guides to their ultimate conclusions.
But if it was does that mean that Justice Kennedy would allow the IRS to read into the statute authorization of subsidies? Or does it mean that he would regard the provisions for subsidies in some states and not in others as null and void? We wont likely know until the decision comes down probably in late June.
But beyond the legal issues the very existence of King v. Burwell is remarkable politically. For the framers of Obamacare certainly did not expect 36 states to reject the blandishment of federal subsidies and refuse to set up state exchanges.
MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber explained why in a now-famous videotaped talk back in 2012. If youre a state and you dont set up an exchange that means your citizens dont get their tax credits he said. If your governor doesnt set up an exchange youre losing hundreds of millions of dollars of tax credits to be delivered to your citizens.
When the videotapes surfaced last year Gruber said that he had misspoken like a typo. But obviously he was just reading the statute as written and obviously he expected that the states would find federal money too tempting to resist.
That expectation was based on some knowledge of history. Over the last half-century states have usually been willing to jump through Congresss hoops in order to receive supposedly free federal money.
For example after Medicaid was passed in 1965 37 states joined the program within two years and by January 1970 only two held out -- Alaska which joined in 1972 and Arizona which held out until 1982. In the 1980s as Congress (largely through the backroom work of Henry Waxman) increased the states required Medicaid spending many governors grumbled but no state dropped out of the program.
In contrast after the Supreme Court let states reject Obamacares Medicaid expansion 22 states did so. And 36 states refused to set up state health insurance exchanges despite Obamacares established by the state language.
Governors and legislators are responsive to public opinion and their increased willingness to forego federal dollars shows an increasing mistrust of centralized command-and-control government. Thats going to be a continuing factor in politics and government whichever way King v. Burwell goes.
Michael Barone senior political analyst for The Washington Examiner (www.washingtonexaminer.com) is a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute a Fox News Channel contributor and a co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.
