U.S. Judge Blocks Obamacare Rule for Non-Exchange States

[Revmitchell]

An Oklahoma federal judge dealt a blow to President Barack Obama’s health-care law, invalidating IRS rules aimed at making policies affordable for consumers around the country.

U.S. District Judge Ronald White in Muskogee ruled today that subsidies, in the form of tax credits, apply only to consumers in the 14 states that have set up insurance marketplaces and not to individuals who buy insurance on the federal marketplace, as in Oklahoma. An Internal Revenue Service rule says needy customers in both the federal and state marketplaces are eligible for subsidies.

“The court is upholding the act as written,” White said, citing language in the law that limits subsidies to those in states with their own exchanges. He called the IRS regulations “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

In July, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington also limited subsidies to state exchanges, a ruling the full appeals court has agreed to reconsider. Another U.S. appeals court, in Richmond, Virginia, said on the same day day that subsidies were available on federal exchanges.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...bamacare-tax-rule-on-non-exchange-states.html

 

[carpro]

Judge White also hammered other judges whose opinions were based on a social agenda and not the law. He wasn't shy about it.

We need more judges like him.

White exposes the Halbig dissent and the King concurrence as politically motivated. He quotes the former attacking the plaintiffs’ motives (a “not-so-veiled attempt to gut” the Act). He quotes the latter wagging its finger at the plaintiffs (“[w]hat [appellants] may not do is rely on our help to deny to millions of Americans desperately-needed health insurance”). White responds:

a proper legal decision is not a matter of the court “helping” one side or the other. A lawsuit challenging a federal regulation is a commonplace occurrence in this country, not an affront to judicial dignity…This is a case of statutory interpretation. “The text is what it is, no matter which side benefits.” Bormes v. United States…Such a case (even if affirmed on the inevitable appeal) does not “gut” or “destroy” anything. On the contrary, the court is upholding the Act as written. Congress is free to amend the ACA to provide for tax credits in both state and federal exchanges, if that is the legislative will.

Regarding claims that the plaintiffs’ case is absurd, White again quotes the Tenth Circuit (in Robbins v. Chronister): “A statute is not ‘absurd’ if it could reflect the sort of compromise that attends legislative endeavor.” He then notes that the recently unearthed comments from Jonathan Gruber demonstrate the plain meaning of the text, and the plaintiffs’ insistence that the government honor that text, are not absurd.

As for the Halbig dissent’s claims that “[a]ppellants have not explained why Congress would want to encourage States to operate Exchanges rather than the federal government doing so, nor is there any indication that Congress had this goal,” White responds, “This court finds such an indication in Section 1311 of the Act itself, which purports to direct States to establish Exchanges.”

It’s a judicious opinion, and now that we (once again) have different courts in different jurisdictions that have issued opposing rulings, Pruitt greatly strengthens the case for the Supreme Court to review King.

 

[carpro]

I wonder if John Roberts is listening. Judge White should write him a letter explaining what judges are supposed to do.