Document Type
Brief
Publication Date
2-28-2015
Abstract
The Amici teach and write about federalism, constitutional law, and legislation. Amici submit this brief in the hope that its analysis of the federalism issues in this case will be of value to the Court.
The parties to this case have set forth two opposing interpretations of the Exchange provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119. Under petitioners' interpretation, federal taxpayer subsidies are available only to those who purchase insurance on Exchanges that are set up by the States and are not available to those who do so on HHS-facilitated Exchanges. Under the government's interpretation, federal subsidies are available to eligible taxpayers in every State, regardless of whether the State itself or HHS set up the Exchange in that State. Petitioners and the government, as well as the court below, have extensively discussed the texts and meanings of the relevant provisions of the ACA.
Amici have a range of views on how the case would be resolved in the absence of the federalism considerations discussed in this brief. Some amici agree with the government that 26 U.S.C. §36B(b), read in the context of the Act's text as a whole, plainly does not disqualify individuals who are enrolled in plans through an Exchange operated by HHS from eligibility to receive premium tax credits. Other amici believe that the best understanding -of Section 36B(b) would be a closer question, or that other provisions of the ACA establish ambiguity about the meaning of Section 36B(b).
This brief does not rehearse the views of amici on the particular submissions of the parties. Amici wish to draw the Court's attention, however, to a different aspect of this case. This Court has found that doctrines designed to preserve and protect the federalist structure established by the Constitution can and should have a significant impact on the interpretation of federal statutes. In particular, "it is incumbent upon the federal courts to be certain of Congress' intent before finding that [a] federal law . overrides the usual constitutional balance of federal and state powers." Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 460 (1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). For the reasons given below, this Court's federalism doctrines, applied in light of the ACA's structure and context, support the proposition that the relevant text of the ACA is, at the least, ambiguous. Petitioners' interpretation would result in a significant intrusion on the usual balance between the state and federal governments that is not clearly embodied in the statute.
Recommended Citation
Bagley, Nicholas, "King v. Burwell: Brief for Professors Thomas W. Merrill, Gillian E. Metzger, Abbe R. Gluck, and Nicholas Bagley as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents" (2015). Appellate Briefs. 96.
https://repository.law.umich.edu/briefs/96
Comments
Amicus: Merrill, Thomas W.; Metzger, Gillian E.; Gluck, Abbe R.; Bagley, Nicholas