| dbo:abstract
|
- King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services. The petitioners had argued that the plain language of the statute provided eligibility for tax credits only to those persons in states with state-operated exchanges. The Court found the plaintiffs' interpretation to be "the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase." Nevertheless, the Court found the statute as a whole to be ambiguous, and that "the pertinent statutory phrase" ought to be interpreted in a manner "that is compatible with the rest of the law." The majority opinion stated: "Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation. But those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. So it stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well." (en)
|
| dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
| |
| dbo:wikiPageID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageLength
|
- 58073 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
|
| dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
| |
| dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
| |
| dbp:arguedate
|
- 0001-03-04 (xsd:gMonthDay)
- 2014-03-25 (xsd:date)
- 2014-05-14 (xsd:date)
|
| dbp:argueyear
| |
| dbp:caption
| |
| dbp:case
| |
| dbp:court
| |
| dbp:dateDecided
| |
| dbp:decidedate
|
- 0001-06-25 (xsd:gMonthDay)
|
| dbp:decideyear
| |
| dbp:dissent
| |
| dbp:docket
| |
| dbp:fullname
|
- David King, et al., Petitioners v. Sylvia Burwell, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. (en)
|
| dbp:holding
|
- Section 36B of the ACA provides for subsidies under both federally run and state-run exchanges. The wording "...established by the State" was superfluous when read within "the broader structure of the Act". (en)
|
| dbp:imagesize
| |
| dbp:joindissent
| |
| dbp:joinmajority
|
- Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan (en)
|
| dbp:judges
| |
| dbp:justia
| |
| dbp:keywords
| |
| dbp:lawsapplied
| |
| dbp:litigants
| |
| dbp:majority
| |
| dbp:name
|
- King v. Burwell (en)
- Halbig v. Burwell (en)
|
| dbp:opinionannouncement
| |
| dbp:opinions
|
- The IRS does not have the statutory power to grant subsidies to Federally-established insurance marketplaces known as exchanges established under the Affordable Care Act, as the enabling legislation defines exchanges as being established by states themselves. Reversed and remanded with instructions to grant summary judgment to the appellants and to vacate the IRS rule, 2–1. Opinion by Judge Griffith, concurrence by Judge Randolph. Judge Edwards dissents. (en)
- The plaintiffs contend that the IRS’s interpretation is contrary to the language of the statute, which, they assert, authorizes tax credits only for individuals who purchase insurance on state-run Exchanges. For reasons explained below, we find that the applicable statutory language is ambiguous and subject to multiple interpretations. Applying deference to the IRS’s determination, however, we uphold the rule as a permissible exercise of the agency’s discretion. (en)
|
| dbp:oralargument
| |
| dbp:otherSource
| |
| dbp:otherUrl
| |
| dbp:oyez
| |
| dbp:parallelcitations
| |
| dbp:prior
| |
| dbp:priorActions
|
- Summary judgment for government defendants, 2014 WL 129023 (en)
|
| dbp:subsequentActions
|
- Rehearing en banc ordered . (en)
|
| dbp:uspage
| |
| dbp:usvol
| |
| dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| rdf:type
| |
| rdfs:comment
|
- King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services. (en)
|
| rdfs:label
| |
| owl:sameAs
| |
| prov:wasDerivedFrom
| |
| foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
| |
| foaf:name
|
- (en)
- David King, et al., Petitioners v.Sylvia Burwell, Secretary ofHealth and Human Services, et al. (en)
|
| is dbo:wikiPageDisambiguates
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageRedirects
of | |
| is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
of | |
| is foaf:primaryTopic
of | |
