What do you mean?
The plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to mandate that the law be enforced as written.
The defendants are asking that the law be whatever some people want it to be.
IIRC in King v Burwell, the 4th circuit upheld the IRS interpretation, so the plaintiffs are asking the USSC to overturn the 4th Circuit, which affirmed the district court opinion against the plaintiffs. So, I think you are correct and I just had an incorrect impression of how the lower decisions went.
It would be helpful (and irritate the extremist leftists) if both the House and the Senate were to vote on, and submit a “sense of the House/Senate Resolution” that would affirm that in their ACA legislation, each body meant the wording to apply precisely as written.