SCOTUS gives strongest possible decision on Obamacare subsidies

Jonathan Cohn, writing for the Huffington Post, says that Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion in King v. Burwell is the strongest possible reading that ensures it cannot simply be overturned by a future president.   Indeed, some pundits are now saying that the Affordable Care Act is now "as esconced as a law can be."   President Obama said "it is now woven into the fabric of America."

It would have been possible for SCOTUS to uphold the law by simply ruling that the relevant agency, in this case the IRS, had the authority to interpret who gets the subsidies.   That would have been a weak ruling because it could have been changed by future presidents with their authority over the IRS.  The Roberts' opinion did not do that.  

Instead, Roberts -- and the five justices who joined his opinion -- based it on the "plain meaning" of the text.   This is a direct refutation of the reasoning of those who brought the suit.   They had tried to claim that the phrase in question that referred to exchanges set up "by the states," meant only those set up by the various states and not those set up by the federal government -- i.e., a literal reading of that sentence in isolation.

Roberts said no, that sentence must be read in the context and meaning of the whole law.   As reported by Cohn, 

"[J]ustices don't typically read such passages in isolation -- they read them in context, to discern how a statute is supposed to function. Doing so, Roberts said, cleared up the ambiguity. Clearly Congress intended for those tax credits to be available everywhere. Otherwise, he noted, the law wouldn’t work properly; in states without the subsidies, insurance markets would fall apart."

Roberts' opinion continues:

“In every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. . . .   A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them.”

Roberts even anticipated Justice Antonin Scalia's reaction, citing Scalia's 2012 dissent in the previous Affordable Care Act, where he himself had observed that the different parts of the law were interlocking pieces, each one necessary for the others to work.

Abbe Gluck, a Yale Law School professor, said "You’ve got six justices, in a clear, strong statement, ruling that the statute can’t be read any other way.  It can’t get any better than that for the government.”    University of Michigan Law School professor Nicholas Bagley seemed to agree:  “The government couldn’t have won bigger."

What a week for President Obama.    Getting Congress to approve his fast track trade procedure and the ACA ruling by mid-week.     Will it be a Trifecta -- with the Iran nuclear arms agreement coming in too?   Or add in the gay marriage rulings expected within a few days and we could have . . . what?    A Quadrecta?

Ralph