10 articles
Nicholas Bagley is an assistant professor of law at the University of Michigan. Portions of this post appeared in an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times. With its decision in King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court handed a decisive win to the Obama administration and to the millions of people who have secured health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
Michael F. Cannon (@mfcannon) is director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. He has been described as “the intellectual father” of King v. Burwell and is co-author (with Jonathan H. Adler) of Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand Tax Credits Under the PPACA, Health Matrix: Journal of Law-Medicine 23, No. 1 (2013): 119-195.
Abbe R. Gluck is Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Solomon Center for Health Law and Policy at Yale Law School. “A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.” So concludes the game-changing statutory interpretation opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts in King v. Burwell.
Adam J. White is counsel with Boyden Gray & Associates, and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His firm filed an amicus brief in King on behalf of the Galen Institute, arguing that the major questions doctrine and federalism considerations favored the challengers instead of the administration.
The Supreme Court has spoken and the Affordable Care Act has once again has survived. The legal issue in King v. Burwell was whether the word “by” in the phrase “Exchange established by the State” found in section 1401 of the ACA should be read, in isolation from and without consideration of the other 414,589 words of the ACA.
Randy E. Barnett, is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he directs the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. He was one of the lawyers representing the National Federation of Independent Business in NFIB v. Sebelius.
Brianne J. Gorod (@BrianneGorod) is appellate counsel at Constitutional Accountability Center. When the Court decided to hear King v. Burwell last November, there was a lot of anxiety that the writing was on the wall.
Thomas M. Fisher is the Solicitor General of Indiana, and authored an amicus brief in support of the petitioners in this case. (This essay is submitted in the author’s individual capacity and the views expressed are his alone.)
Einer Elhauge is the Petrie Professor of Law at Harvard Law School My major takeaways from the Supreme Court’s opinion in King v. Burwell are these: First, this opinion confirms an interesting divide among Supreme Court conservatives between the economic conservatives and the formalist conservatives.
David B. Rivkin, Jr. is a constitutional litigator at BakerHostetler, LLP, who served in the Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations.