Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.

 Skip to Content

Circuit Courts Provide Preview of Coming ACA Confrontations
September 16, 2014

The next Supreme Court battle over the Affordable Care Act is likely brewing in the circuit courts. On July 22, 2014, in Halbig v. Burwell, a divided D.C. Circuit held that the ACA does not allow the federal government to issue tax credits to those who purchase health insurance on federally-operated exchanges in 36 states. The court reasoned that the ACA makes the credits available only for plans "enrolled through an Exchange established by the State," not through an exchange established by the federal government.

Soon after, the Fourth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in King v. Burwell. It held that the ACA is ambiguous and deferred to the Internal Revenue Service’s administrative interpretation. In holding the statute ambiguous, the court reasoned that, while limiting the tax credits to state-operated exchanges had a "literal" appeal, the ACA also offered support for the opposite proposition.

For example, the ACA defines an "Exchange" as one established by the state, and then provides that the federal government will establish "such Exchange" if the state does not. This creates reasonable grounds to argue that the federal government merely "acts on behalf of the state when it establishes its own Exchange." Additionally, the ACA requires both federally-operated and state-operated exchanges to report on tax credits, which arguably would not make sense unless both had tax credits on which to report. Given the ambiguity, the court deferred to the IRS’s interpretation, which it held consistent with Congress’s intent of "ensuring the credits’ broad availability."

The losing party in either case may seek en banc review, and similar cases are pending in federal trial courts in Indiana and Oklahoma. The Supreme Court is more likely to review the matter if there are conflicting decisions.
Authored By
Image: Jon T. Gatto
Jon T. Gatto
Related Practices
Health Care
Related Industries
Health Care
©2024 Carlton Fields, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.