Obamacare opponents who want the courts to rein in income-based subsidies they view as illegal have asked a D.C. federal appeals court not to move forward with their challenge because the Supreme Court has decided to hear a separate case that presents the same legal issue.
Going forward now would be a waste of everyone’s time, they said in a legal brief.
The justices decided Friday to hear a case from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth District that asks whether the Obama administration stretched the meaning of the Affordable Care Act by doling our premium tax credits to customers on the federally run health exchange.
The challengers in King v. Burwell say the courts should invalidate an IRS rule that extended the subsidies — a key selling point of the law because it makes insurance more affordable — to every state because a phrase in the statute suggests the assistance is reserved for exchanges “established by the state,” meaning the ones set up by 14 states and the District of Columbia.
The Obama administration says that’s not the case and every state is entitled to subsidies under the law. They won before the Fourth District, so the challengers took it up with the Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit ruled against the Obama administration over the summer in an identical case — Halbig v. Burwell — but invalidated that ruling and agreed to rehear the case with a fuller slate of judges, or “en banc.”
Attorneys for the law’s challengers say there’s no point in moving along with the motion calendar and arguments before the D.C. Circuit if the Supreme Court is set to rule on the issue during this term.
“The Supreme Court’s resolution of King will directly control this case,” attorney Michael A. Carvin wrote in a motion filed Monday.
His brief said while the government will not make its position known untilWednesday at the earliest, they would like an answer quickly because their own brief of the merits of the case is due on Monday.
“Simply put,” Mr. Carvin wrote, “there is no reason to consume the substantial resources associated with en banc rehearing when the Supreme Court is poised to decide the same issue on virtually the same timeline.”
• Tom Howell Jr. can be reached at thowell@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.