Source: https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/category/health-care/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 03:03:58+00:00

Document:
On 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.
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.
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.
Today 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.
I am just going to come out and say it: I have been a long-time proponent of universal, single-payer style heath care for our nation. I am a firm believer that private insurance companies should play no role whatsoever in the provision of health insurance for Americans. It is for this reason that I was so dismayed when President Obama proposed a health care reform regime with the existing private health insurance infrastructure (and Medicaid) as its foundation. I was even among those political wonks who wanted Congress to vote down the Affordable Care Act (ACA) once it became apparent that the ACA exchanges were not going to offer a “public option” to exchange participants. In the years since the law’s passage, I have become an ardent supporter of the law because it is moving our nation in the direction of universal health insurance coverage.
As a law student and constitutional law scholar, I am surprised that the Supreme Court opted to take King on appeal. By the time SCOTUS granted certiorari, the circuit split had been resolved by an en banc ruling of the DC Circuit. What is more troubling is that the petitioners do not appear, by any objective standard, to have standing to bring this suit. Standing is a concept that all first year law students are well acquainted with; it is equally obvious that the petitioners have suffered no judicially cognizable injury by operation of the IRS regulation interpreting the exchange subsidies as applicable to state-run and federally-run insurance exchanges. I have read the petitioners’ standing argument — it is so ridiculous that it does not bear recital here.
Even if one is able to get past the standing issue, an interpretation of the challenged statutory language that petitioners claim limits the availability of subsides to state-run insurance exchanges runs contrary to the canons of statutory interpretation. A comprehensive law that regulates the health insurance system of an entire nation and affects a good portion of our nation’s economy should not hinge on the meaning of a term that is ambiguous in isolation, but definite and decisive when taken in the context of the statute. The term “state,” as used in the ACA, has a broad meaning that encompasses “state” in the scholarly sense of a nation-state and the customized meaning of “state” as a sub-national unit of government.
There are many moral and political arguments that one can make in favor of upholding the decisions of the DC and Fourth Circuits. As a law student writing from a legal perspective, I put these arguments to the side. What is unfortunate for the four (or more) members of the Supreme Court who voted to take up this silly challenge is that the law (and precedent) is not on their side. I predict that the Supreme Court will uphold the decisions of the DC and Fourth Circuits on a 5-4 vote, with Chief Justice Roberts joining the court’s four moderate justices.
By: Edward A. FallonePosted on November 6, 2014 Categories Business Regulation, Constitutional Law, Corporate Law, First Amendment, Health Care, Public, Religion & Law, U.S. Supreme CourtLeave a comment» on Supreme Court Roundup Part Two: Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
On October 30, I participated in a presentation entitled “Supreme Court Roundup” with Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute. The event was sponsored by the Law School chapters of the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society. We discussed three significant cases from the 2013-2014 Supreme Court term: McCutcheon v. FEC, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby and Harris v. Quinn. It was a spirited discussion, in which Mr. Shapiro and I presented opposing views, but I want to thank Mr. Shapiro for taking the time to visit the Law School and sharing his perspective with the students.
This is the second of three blog posts on the presentation. Readers can find the first post here. What follows are my prepared remarks on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Readers interested in Mr. Shapiro’s position on the case can refer to the amicus brief that he filed on behalf of the Cato Institute.
The legal issue in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores can be described simply. Under the provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services requires employers to provide health insurance plans making contraception available to their female employees at no cost. In the NFIB v. Sebelius decision in 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Congress’ power to pass the Affordable Care Act as an exercise of its taxing power. But even if Congress has the power to pass the law, can a for profit corporation nonetheless avoid following the law by arguing that the contraception provisions burden the corporation’s free exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)?
The rights of the individual shareholders that own the corporation were not at issue. The law does not act on the individuals, and does not require these human beings to do anything. The only legal requirement imposed by the law is imposed on the corporate entity.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.