DALLAS, TX: A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit’s ruling today on Halbig vs. Burwell effectively defunds ObamaCare in two-thirds of the states, and is the biggest legal challenge to ObamaCare we’ve seen, says Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) resident scholar Merrill Matthews, Ph.D. It is also likely the Supreme Court would agree with the DC Circuit's ruling, said Matthews.
Matthews says the court’s decision undermines the individual mandate in the 36 states that opted to use the federal health insurance exchange and therefore makes it “very difficult” for millions of middle- income earners to buy Obamacare-approved health insurance. In effect, those Americans will be exempted from the mandate to have Obamacare-approved coverage.
“This law was poorly conceived, poorly drafted, poorly passed, and poorly implemented,” said Matthews. “President Obama came to Washington wanting to pass a health care law in the worst way—and he did just that.”
The difference between today’s decision by the three-judge panel for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court’s June 2012 decision in NFIB v. Sebelius upholding the individual mandate is that Halbig is a statutory challenge to the law’s actual language as opposed to a constitutional challenge in NFIB.
The Obama administration is likely to ask for a ruling from the full DC Circuit, which includes a number of new Obama appointees, said Matthews. "Two recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, one written by Justice Elena Kagan and one by Justice Antonin Scalia, imply that the Court could agree with the Halbig decision. As Justice Kagan writes in her decision, 'this court does not revise legislation … just because the text as written creates an anomaly at to some subject it does not address.' That is the issue at the core of Halbig."
Matthews says the court’s decision undermines the individual mandate in the 36 states that opted to use the federal health insurance exchange and therefore makes it “very difficult” for millions of middle- income earners to buy Obamacare-approved health insurance. In effect, those Americans will be exempted from the mandate to have Obamacare-approved coverage.
“This law was poorly conceived, poorly drafted, poorly passed, and poorly implemented,” said Matthews. “President Obama came to Washington wanting to pass a health care law in the worst way—and he did just that.”
The difference between today’s decision by the three-judge panel for the DC Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court’s June 2012 decision in NFIB v. Sebelius upholding the individual mandate is that Halbig is a statutory challenge to the law’s actual language as opposed to a constitutional challenge in NFIB.
The Obama administration is likely to ask for a ruling from the full DC Circuit, which includes a number of new Obama appointees, said Matthews. "Two recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, one written by Justice Elena Kagan and one by Justice Antonin Scalia, imply that the Court could agree with the Halbig decision. As Justice Kagan writes in her decision, 'this court does not revise legislation … just because the text as written creates an anomaly at to some subject it does not address.' That is the issue at the core of Halbig."
The Institute for Policy Innovation is an independent, nonprofit, public policy organization based in Dallas, Texas. IPI resident scholar Merrill Matthews, Ph.D. is available for interview by contacting Erin Humiston at (972) 874-5139, or erin@ipi.org.
--###--
--###--