A SCOTUS ruling against administration on health-care law could cite this case to avoid sudden chaos
If the U.S. Supreme Court rules against the Obama administration in a dispute over tax subsidies and the health-care law, it could cite a little-known 1982 decision to avoid an abrupt change.
The decision, Northern Pipeline v. Marathon Pipeline, stayed a ruling on the powers of bankruptcy judges to give Congress time to respond, the National Law Journal (sub. req.) reports.
The court could rely on Northern Pipeline if it interprets the Affordable Care Act to bar tax subsidies for low-income people who purchase health insurance in 34 states without their own insurance exchanges. The court could stay implementation of its decision in King v. Burwell to “delay or reduce the disarray,” the article says.
At issue in King v. Burwell is a provision of the health-care law allowing subsidies for people participating in exchanges “established by the state.” Supporters of the law say the phrase should allow subsidies in all states when read in context of the entire law; challengers say the phrase nixes subsidies in states with federal exchanges.
Justice Samuel A. Alito raised the possibility of a stay under Northern Pipeline during oral arguments.
Related articles:
ABAJournal.com: “Chemerinsky: SCOTUS gets another look at the Affordable Care Act”
ABA Journal: “Although the ACA is 1,000 pages long, its future may depend on a single phrase”
