The IRS's Case In Halbig v. Sebelius Is Crumbling, With A Little Help From Its Friends

Forbes ^ | March 24, 2014 | Michael F. Cannon

[grundle]

Tomorrow morning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in Halbig v. Sebelius, a case that challenges the IRS’s ability to implement ObamaCare’s health insurance subsidies and mandate penalties in the 34 states with federally established health “exchanges.” Though the IRS prevailed at the district-court level, its allies have been inadvertently undermining the agency’s case ever since.

First, a little background. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 clearly, repeatedly, and consistently says that the above-mentioned subsidies and penalties are authorized only “through an Exchange established by the State.” The IRS breezed right past that explicit, recurring, and uncontradicted indicator of congressional intent, however, when the agency announced it would implement those subsidies and penalties in states that did not establish an Exchange and the federal government established one by default. The IRS is thus taxing the Halbig plaintiffs, who reside in states that did not establish Exchanges, without congressional authorization. The plaintiffs don’t like that.

[grundle]

The Obamacare law says that subsidies can go to people "through an Exchange established by the State." However, 34 states are getting their subsidies from the federal exchange, because they did not create their own exchange at the state level. The plaintiff in this case claims that the subsidies for the people in these 34 states are illegal. The law is very clear about this, but the IRS and the Obama administration don't care what the law says.

[ReaganÜberAlles]

I doubt the SCOTUS will agree with you, although I wish they would.

[Slyfox]

Just how many lawsuits are lodged against The Sebaceous Cyst? I doubt whether she will have enough free time in order to run for the senate.

[GunRunner]

The Courts seem like a long shot. That ship has sailed, and it sank.

[nickcarraway]

Does anyone actually think a majority of judges anywhere is going to decide against ACA?

[HANG THE EXPENSE]

The answer is simple , NO. The judges don’t want to audited by the I r s anymore than the rest of us.

[Secret Agent Man]

roberts will just rewrite the law. again.

[dr_lew]

There’s a limit to everything, and such a “rewriting” would amount to a complete disintegration, it seems to me. It amounts to dissolving parliament. Congress becomes a mere trumpet, a herald of royal intent.

[tet68]

a herald of royal intent.

You know Obama would like the sound of that...

[proudpapa]

AGREED.

This should kill it unless there are a bunch of limp wristed rinos who agree to a fix.

[Secret Agent Man]

it was already rewritten on the “is it a tax or not” issue and it didn’t stop any of them, and it didn’t stop the obamacare law.