Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts The Amicus Briefs Supporting the Government's Position in King v. Burwell
|
Sunday, February 01, 2015
The Amicus Briefs Supporting the Government's Position in King v. Burwell
Guest Blogger
Timothy Jost
On January 28, 2015, thirty amicus briefs were filed in the
Supreme Court supporting the validity of the Internal Revenue Service rule in
King v. Burwell. That rule permits the
federally facilitated marketplaces (FFM), which administer the Affordable Care
Act insurance markets in two thirds of the states, to grant premium tax
credits. King is a lawsuit brought by
the Competitive Enterprise Institute, an anti-government advocacy group,
claiming that four words that appear in two subsections of the ACA that provide
the formula for calculating premium tax credits and refer to exchanges
“established by the State” limit premium tax credits to state-operated
marketplaces (exchanges). They ask the
Court, therefore, to invalidate the IRS rule and terminate tax credits for more
than five million Americans.
The thirty briefs were filed by an extraordinary assemblage
of states and state legislators, members of Congress, leading legal scholars,
academics from a variety of other disciplines offering a wide range of perspectives,
insurers, providers, and patients and their advocates. By contrast the twenty-one amicus briefs
filed last month by the challengers are far more limited in scope. The challengers submitted briefs signed by a
few Republican Congressmen, seven states, and a handful of conservative and
libertarian legal scholars. The rest of
their amici were right-wing advocacy groups.
Among the most important briefs is the brief filed by the Virginia
attorney general and the attorneys general of twenty-one other states and the
District of Columbia. Ten of the states
have federal exchanges and eight have Republican governors. By contrast, the six states that filed amicus
briefs for the challengers are all dominated by Republicans. Tellingly, the
biggest Republican federal exchange states, such as Florida, Texas, Wisconsin,
and Ohio did not join.
The Virginia brief argues that the Constitution does not
permit Congress to impose financial penalties on the states in cooperative
spending programs unless the state is given clear notice of the conditions
under which the penalty will be imposed.
The brief documents the fact that both the states that decided to
operate their own marketplace and those that decided to have the federal
government operate the marketplace in their state made the decision fully
understanding that premium tax credits would be available under either
option. The states were not on notice
that their residents would lose access to affordable health insurance and that
their state’s individual insurance markets would be destroyed if they opted for
a federal exchange. The Court must avoid
the serious constitutional question raised by this lack of notice by
interpreting the statute in the way the states understood it.
A second important brief was filed by the Constitutional
Accountability Center on behalf of the Democratic members of Congress who
played a key role in drafting the ACA in the 111th Congress and over
100 individuals who served in state legislatures at the time their states were
deciding whether to operate their own exchange or invite the federal government
to do so. The members clarify that it
was always the intent of Congress to permit FFM as well as state-operated
marketplace states to have access to premium tax credits.
Significantly, the brief cites statements by Senator Ben
Nelson that he understood that FFM states could grant tax credits. A key element of the
story that the plaintiffs have constructed as to why the ACA would not have
allowed FFM states to grant the tax credits has been that Nelson demanded it. This is simply false.
It is also important that the members who signed the brief not only
point to contemporaneous evidence of their intent at the time the law was
drafted but affirmatively state their understanding about what the law meant. The Republican congressional members who
filed an amicus for the challengers carefully avoided actually saying that they
believed that the ACA prohibited FFMs from granting premium tax credits at the
time they voted on the bill and offered no contemporaneous evidence that they had
this understanding.
The state legislators affirm that they did not understand at
the time their states decided whether or not to operate their own marketplaces
that they were under a threat that tax credits would be withheld if they went
with a federal marketplace. Of course, a
secret threat is not a threat, again demonstrating that the challengers’ story
about why the ACA would have limited tax credits to state marketplace states is
a pure fiction.
Several briefs were filed by prominent legal scholars. A brief
filed by William Eskridge, John Ferejohn, Charles Fried, Lisa Marshall Manheim
and David Strauss explains why a textualist analysis of the law would compel
the Court to rule for the government.
Proper textualism does not single out a single phrase of a law and then
try to determine whether a proposed reading of that phrase would render the
rest of the law absurd, the approach taken by Judge Griffith in the now vacated
Halbig D.C.Circuit decision. Rather
textualism requires the Court to consider the meaning of particular provisions
in light of the entire text of the law.
A brief filed by Thomas Merrill, Gillian Metzger, Abbe Gluck, and Nicholas Bagley elaborates the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence mandating that doctrines designed to preserve the nation’s federalist structure should significantly influence interpretation of federal statutes to avoid interpretations that would damage that structure where Congress’ intent is not clear, or interpretations that would, without clear notice, link harmful consequences to choices that statutes offer to states. Noting that the petitioners’ interpretation would, for states electing federal operation of their exchanges, put individual insurance markets in a worse position than prior to the ACA, the brief demonstrates that the court’s federalism doctrines and precedents compel rejection of petitioners’ interpretation. In addition, the brief shows that a prohibition on premium tax credits for federal exchanges is inconsistent with the kind of cooperative federalism program represented by the ACA marketplaces. The brief refutes claims made by the challengers and their amici that a program that would operate the way the challengers characterize the ACA program would resemble other existing federal programs.
Another brief
filed by a group of constitutional and health law scholars also raises
federalism issues. It argues that if the
Court adopts the challengers’ reading of the law it would effectively hold that
the FFM states are subject to a set of regulatory mandates and requirements that
in the absence of the premium tax credits would destroy the insurance markets
in those states. This disparate threat of regulatory punishment would render
the law constitutionally suspect but can be avoided by adopting the
government’s reading of the law.
Yet another brief
filed by former federal government officials argues that even if the
government’s reading of the law is not the only possible reading of the law,
the Court should uphold the IRS rule under the Chevron rule, which requires
deference to an administrative agency’s permissible interpretation of an
ambiguous law. Finally a brief submitted
by lawyer Maurice F. Baggiano
actually quotes a dictionary to show that an FFM is an exchange “established by
the state.”
Other briefs were filed by a
range of scholars from other disciplines.
Thirty-six
prominent historians and political scientists filed a brief demonstrating that
given the history of previous health reform efforts, of which Congress was
aware, Congress could not possibly have created marketplaces without the ability
to grant tax credits to make health insurance affordable. This brief also traces the legislative
history of the ACA, demonstrating that federal fallback exchanges that could
grant tax credits were present in every version of the legislation.
A brief filed by over 100
public health deans and scholars documents the devastating effect of a decision
against the IRS rule on the nation’s health.
The brief predicts that a decision for the challengers could result in
9800 additional premature deaths annually.
Yet another brief by 52 distinguished
economists (including 3 Nobel Prize winners) documents the economic effects
of an adverse decision, not just on individuals now receiving premium tax
credits, but also on the individual insurance markets in FFM states, which
would be devastated through adverse selection by a decision for the
challengers.
Separate amicus briefs were
filed supporting the government by the American
Hospital Association and by other associations representing most of the
nation’s hospitals; the Catholic
Hospital Association; Hospital
Corporation of America; the American
Thoracic Society; the National
Alliance of State Health CO-OPs; the National
Association of Community Health Centers, American Nurses Association, and
American College of Physicians; and the American
Academy of Pediatrics, together with the American Academy of Family
Physicians, and Children’s Hospital Association demonstrating the disastrous
effects that a decision against the government would have on American health
care providers and insurers and their patients.
An excellent brief was also filed by Andy Pincus for America’s
Health Insurance Plans demonstrating the effects that an adverse decision
would have on insured Americans, whether they are insured through the
marketplaces or in the outside market.
Tellingly, no stakeholders filed amicus briefs supporting the
plaintiffs.
Finally,
and most importantly, about a dozen briefs were filed by individuals with
chronic medical conditions; organizations representing individuals with medical
needs, unions, an organization representing small employers, and organizations
representing various minority and ethnic groups. These briefs demonstrate the real world effects
that an adverse decision would have on actual Americans now receiving help
through the Affordable Care Act, some of whose lives depend on that help. Particularly worth reading is a brief filed
by Robert Weiner for Families
USA which develops with great clarity the legal argument for upholding the
IRS rule.
All of
the briefs reinforce the legal arguments made by the government in its
excellent merits
brief filed on January 21. That
brief demonstrated conclusively that the text of the ACA supports the IRS rule
and that the arguments of the plaintiffs are transparently false. The amicus briefs are helpful, however, in
elaborating on elements of that argument and in demonstrating the real world
consequences of a wrong decision. It is
to be hoped that the Court considers their message carefully.
Timothy Jost is Professor of Law at Washington and Lee University School of Law. You can reach him by e-mail at Jostt at wlu.edu
Posted 1:35 PM by Guest Blogger [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |