“It won on cross-state air pollution and the bigger question in greenhouse gas regulations,” Donnelly said. “In both cases it was a cross-ideological coalition of the justices deferring to the EPA’s reasonable interpretation of the statute.”
CAC In the News
The public health community, various members of the energy sector, several states, and the Supreme Court’s own precedents are all on the side of the EPA’s new standards. When the court decides this case in a few months, here’s hoping that a majority of the justices are, too.
"The context of the whole law is essential to resolving this case, and that principle was made clear" in the argument, said Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center. "If the court follows its own precedents that govern the reading of statutes, the Affordable Care Act's tax credits should be available nationwide."
At any argument, there are always tough questions for both sides, but the government has to have been happy about the questions that were asked during the King argument — as well as the answers that Verrilli was able to give.
Trevor Burrus and Elizabeth Wydra talked about the legal aspects Supreme Court justices would consider following oral argument in King v. Burwell. The case concerns the legality of the Internal Revenue Service extending tax-credit subsidies to health insurance plans sold through federally-administered exchanges as well as state-run exchanges.