Supreme Court Roundup Part Two: King v. Burwell

Obama_signs_health_care-20100323On October 5, I participated in an event at the Marquette University Law School entitled “Supreme Court Roundup” with Cato Institute Scholar Ilya Shapiro.  The event was sponsored by the Law School Chapters of the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society.  A previous post contained my remarks on Obergefell v. Hodges (the “Gay Marriage case”).  What follows are my prepared remarks on King v. Burwell (the “Obamacare case”).

The issue in this case was whether the Affordable Care Act’s tax credits are available in States that have a federal health insurance exchange rather than a state exchange. In Section 36A, the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as “Obamacare”) states that tax credits “shall be allowed” for any “applicable taxpayer.” Then, in Section 36B, the Act provides that the amount of the tax credit depends in part on whether the taxpayer has enrolled in an insurance plan through “an Exchange established by the State.” (emphasis added).

In King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that Section 36B allows tax credits to be used for insurance purchased on any exchange created under the Act, including insurance purchased on a federal exchange.

I want to be clear.  I make the following statement with the intent to be as objective and non-partisan as possible.  This litigation was nothing more than a post hoc attack on the Affordable Care Act, using one isolated provision of the law read out of context in order to arrive at a nonsensical meaning, which then used a manufactured theory of legislative intent – a theory without a shred of contemporaneous support in the legislative history – in a desperate attempt to prop up the nonsensical meaning.

The background of how this case arose is illuminating.

Continue ReadingSupreme Court Roundup Part Two: King v. Burwell

In Eckstein Hall Session, Schimel Emphasizes Fight Against Opiate Drug Abuse

Drug overdose deaths don’t usually make big headlines. But ask Brad Schimel about his priorities as Wisconsin’s still quite-new attorney general (he took office in January) and they are at the top of his priorities. Here’s a powerful reason why:

More people die each year in Wisconsin from overdoses of opiate drugs, the kind issued through prescriptions at drug stores, than die from breast cancer, traffic accidents, hand guns, or heroin combined, Schimel said during an “On the Issues with Mike Gousha” program at Eckstein Hall on Sept. 23.

Seventy percent of heroin addicts got addicted to prescription pills first, Schimel said, and seventy percent of the prescription drug addicts got pills from friends or family members, Schimel said.

Schimel announced in mid September a campaign called “A Dose of Reality” to increase awareness of the extent of prescription drug abuse in Wisconsin. He said the medical community of the state was cooperating in promoting education and more precautions not only in the general public, but in medical jobs that involve providing such drugs. Many in the medical sector are not aware of how widespread the problems of abuse are. Schimel said in announcing the campaign.

Schimel told Gousha he met many times with families of those who died of such abuse while he was Waukesha County district attorney, his job before becoming district attorney. He said it was myth that those who died were “bad kids.” Schimel said, “I’ve yet to find a parent who had the bad kid. These are good kids.” They came from a wide range of backgrounds and lifestyles. And those who die, in general, come from all parts of the state, rural, suburban and urban, and grew up in homes across the spectrum of income levels, he said.

The Dose of Reality campaign is aimed at promoting drug treatment and effective law enforcement work, as well as public education.

In his conversation with Gousha, the Law School’s distinguished fellow in law and public policy, Schimel also touched on other issues the attorney general’s office is facing.

He agreed that there appear to be conflicting provisions in federal rules related to whether Wisconsin can require people who receive public aid to purchase food to undergo drug tests. Republicans in the Legislature passed such a law this year, but it is being challenged in court.

“Ultimately that’s what courts do, they decide when there is a conflict of laws,” Schimel said. “We’re going to have this resolved there.”

Schimel also stood by his firm position on maintaining Wisconsin’s strong record of open government and access to public records. Schimel, who won office as a Republican, said sometimes it is necessary to go against the wishes of Republican law makers. In this instance, some Republicans tried to push through substantial changes in open government rules several months ago. Schimel’s opposition was a factor in those changes being pulled off the table after initially getting support.

Schimel also discussed Wisconsin’s participation in fighting tighter air pollution laws backed by the Obama administration and the slow start to a planned joint state-county-city effort to crackdown on gun crimes in Milwaukee. He commented in general terms on the John Doe investigation related to campaign activities on behalf of Gov. Scott Walker, but he did not give a direct answer to a question on whether he thought Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm engaged in a “witch hunt,” as some Republicans have said.

Video of the one-hour program may be watched by clicking here.

Continue ReadingIn Eckstein Hall Session, Schimel Emphasizes Fight Against Opiate Drug Abuse

ObamaCare Upheld . . . Again

1024px-William_Hogarth_004Today the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in the widely anticipated case of King v. Burwell, ruling that the language of the statute authorizes tax credits for individuals who use health insurance exchanges set up by the federal government as opposed to the states.  The result of the ruling is that the Affordable Care Act continues to operate and that millions of previously uninsured Americans will continue to receive health insurance under ObamaCare.  Many observers had predicted an adverse ruling from the Court, and a period of uncertainty (if not chaos) if the use of federal health insurance exchanges was struck down.  Today’s ruling by the Court means that there will be no disruption in the workings of the Affordable Care Act.  Coupled with this week’s passage of “fast track authority” for a Pacific trade bill, the ruling also cements a record of legislative accomplishment for President Obama that will add to his legacy.

Somewhat surprisingly, the Court voted 6-3 in favor of the Administration’s proffered reading of the statute.  Some observers had predicted a narrower margin.  Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the majority.  The Chief Justice’s opinion also was crucial in upholding the Affordable Care Act in the NFIB v. Sebelius case in 2012, and it therefore appears that future historians will inevitably evaluate John Roberts’ career as Chief Justice in light of his prominent role in the survival of ObamaCare.

Continue ReadingObamaCare Upheld . . . Again
Newer Posts
Older Posts