<< Back to blog

Federal courts issue conflicting rulings on legality of ObamaCare subsidies

By

Two federal appeals court rulings put the issue of ObamaCare subsidies in limbo Tuesday, with one court invalidating some of them and the other upholding all of them.

The first decision came Tuesday morning from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The panel, in a major blow to the law, ruled 2-1 that the IRS went too far in extending subsidies to those who buy insurance through the federally run exchange, known as HealthCare.gov.

A separate federal appeals court — the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — hours later issued its own ruling on a similar case that upheld the subsidies in their entirety.

The conflicting rulings would typically fast-track the matter to the Supreme Court. However, it is likely that the administration will ask the D.C. appeals court to first convene all 11 judges to re-hear that case.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest stressed Tuesday that different courts have reached different conclusions on the subsidy issue, and said the latest ruling against the subsidies “does not have any practical impact” at this point on the ability of people to get tax credits. The White House later said the D.C. decision was “undermined” by the Fourth Circuit decision.

Still, the D.C. court ruling nevertheless strikes at the foundation of the law by challenging subsidies that millions of people obtained through the federally run exchange known as HealthCare.gov.

The suit maintained that the language in ObamaCare actually restricts subsidies to state-run exchanges — of which there are only 14 — and does not authorize them to be given in the 36 states that use the federally run system.

The court agreed.

“We reach this conclusion, frankly, with reluctance. At least until states that wish to can set up Exchanges, our ruling will likely have significant consequences both for the millions  of individuals receiving tax credits through federal Exchanges and for health insurance markets more broadly,” the ruling stated.

The case, Halbig v. Burwell, is one of the first major legal challenges that cuts to the heart of the Affordable Care Act by going after the legality of massive federal subsidies and those who benefit from them.

The decision said the law “unambiguously restricts” the subsidies to insurance bought on state-run exchanges.

The dissenting opinion, though, claimed political motivations were at play. “This case is about Appellants’ not-so-veiled attempt to gut the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (‘ACA’),” the dissent stated.

The ruling, though likely to be appealed, could threaten the entire foundation of the newly devised health care system. Nearly 90 percent of the federal exchange’s insurance enrollees were eligible for subsidies because of low or moderate incomes, and the outcome of the case could potentially leave millions without affordable health insurance.

“Today’s decision rightly holds the Obama administration accountable to the law,” Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, said in a written statement adding, “… As it has on so many occasions, the Obama administration simply ignored the law and implemented its own policy instead.”

The next step for the Obama administration would be that they request a so-called en banc ruling, which means there would be a vote taken by all of the judges on the court. An appeals court can only overrule a decision made by a panel if the court is sitting en banc.

Earnest said the Department of Justice will likely appeal to the full D.C. Circuit Court and defended the administration’s position that Congress intended “all eligible Americans” to have access to the subsidies regardless of which entity set up the exchange.

“We are confident in the legal position that we have,” Earnest said.

Ron Pollack, founding executive director of Families USA, said in a written statement that the ruling “represents the high-water mark for Affordable Care Act opponents, but the water will recede very quickly.”

He added, “It will inevitably be placed on hold pending further proceedings; will probably be reheard by all of the 11-member active D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals members, who predictably will reverse it; and runs contrary to” the ruling from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The appeals process could eventually lead to the U.S. Supreme Court deciding on the legality of the subsidies, but Pollack, whose group supports the law, believes that won’t happen.

Of the 11 judges that could rehear the case, seven are Democrats and four are Republicans.

Halbig v. Burwell, which previously had been called Halbig v. Sebelius, is one of four federal lawsuits that have been filed aimed at targeting the idea of tax credits and other subsidies afforded under ObamaCare.

A total of $1 trillion in subsidies is projected to be doled out over the next decade.

A U.S. District Court previously sided with the Obama administration on Jan. 15.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/07/22/federal-appeals-court-invalidates-some-obamacare-subsidies-in-blow-to-health/

End of article.

Update: 

Administration appeals ruling that struck down ObamaCare subsidies

The Obama administration on Friday appealed the ruling that some subsidies under ObamaCare are illegal.

The Justice Department filed a petition with the full D.C. Circuit Court asking the judges to review the ruling in Halbig v. Burwell that overturned some of the subsidies distributed to help people pay for health insurance.

ADVERTISEMENT

The 2-1 ruling dealt a major blow to the healthcare law, and if allowed to stand could demolish one of the pillars of the Affordable Care Act.“The disruption threatened by the panel majority’s erroneous interpretation and the direct conflict with King present a question of ‘exceptional importance’ warranting en banc consideration,” the Justice Department wrote in its petition.

The ruling by the three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit conflicted with a separate decision handed down the same day in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The majority in that case, King v. Burwell, found the subsidies were legal.

The central question facing the courts is whether the language of the healthcare law limits the federal subsidies to healthcare exchanges created by the states. If so, subsidies cannot be distributed through the federal exchange HealthCare.gov, which now serves 5 million people in 34 states.

Attorneys on both sides agree that a strict reading of the Affordable Care Act specifies that only an “exchange established by the State” is eligible for subsidies, but the Obama administration says that was not the intention of Congress.

In order for the D.C. Circuit Court to revisit Burwell, a majority of the court’s 17 judges would have to agree to rehear the case.

While the plaintiffs in the case are not required to file a response brief, the court may order them to do so, “given the high-profile nature of the case,” according to a Justice Department official.

“It is unclear when we might have a decision on whether they’ll hear the case en banc, given they would likely give the other side at least a few weeks to craft a response brief and then additional time would be taken to review the briefs before decision made,” the official said.

Earlier this week, plaintiffs in the King case also filed a petition with the Supreme Court to review their case.

__________________________________________________________________________

core_125

productimage

Section 125 Premium Only Plan, or a POP Plan is an essential part of any employer group health insurance and ancillary benefit program. Section 125 is the part of the Internal Revenue Code that allows employees to purchase health insurance and other ancillary benefits tax free. A Section 125 Plan legally allows your employees to pay their portion of medical insurance premium and other ancillary benefits premiums using pretax or tax-free dollars.

Core Documents provides employers with everything they need to establish an IRS and DOL compliant Section 125 POP Plan for only $99.00 in PDF version emailed to you as soon as your document is completed. For $149, you can receive the Deluxe Binder option that includes the PDF email version ASAP, and a printed plan document in a 3-ring binder shipped via Priority Mail.

Core Documents, Inc. has been providing free consulting, affordable plan documents, and plan updates as needed for Section 125 Cafeteria Plans and Health Reimbursement Arrangements since 1997. See more information about these fringe benefit plans at Core Documents’ website: https://www.coredocuments.com, or call toll free 1-888-755-3373.