Sorry Dems, Affordability Is Trump's Strength
We Got Him: Brown University Shooter Found Dead in New Hampshire
Retirement Accounts Come Roaring Back in 2025
Can the Dark Ages Return?
Trump's National Speech Has the Press Spinning Wildly, Leading to Dizzying Partisan Analys...
Judge Hannah Dugan Found Guilty of Felony Obstruction, Not Guilty of Misdemeanor Charge
Chanukah Is Relevant for Everyone – but Not in the Way You Might...
Animal Rights Grinches Target NJ Fish and Game Council
Yes, Chabad
Ilhan Omar Can Accuse ICE With No Proof
We Have Reached the Emily Litella Moment on Climate Change
Another Jewish Massacre on a Jewish Holy Day Is a Wake-Up Call to...
Virginia’s Incoming Democratic Governor Doubles Down on Bias
It Will Be Okay
Jon Ossoff Is Just Another Elitist Liberal
OPINION

The Wall Street Journal on Halbig v. Sebelius

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear oral arguments in Halbig v. Sebelius, one of four cases that Jonathan Adler and I helped spur with our 2013 Health Matrix article, “Taxation Without Representation: The Illegal IRS Rule to Expand Tax Credits Under the PPACA.” Critics call Halbig the most significant existential threat to the Affordable Care Act.” In anticipation of the hearing, the Wall Street Journal wrote a lengthy editorial explaining the issues. Excerpts:

Halbig v. Sebelius involves no great questions of constitutional interpretation. The plaintiffs are merely asking the judges to tell the Administration to faithfully execute the plain language of the statute that Congress passed and President Obama signed.

The Affordable Care Act—at least the version that passed in 2010—instructed the states to establish insurance exchanges, and if they didn’t the Health and Human Services Department was authorized to build federal exchanges. The law says that subsidies will be available only to people who enroll “through an Exchange established by the State.” The question in Halbig is whether these taxpayer subsidies can be distributed through the federal exchanges, as the Administration insists…

In 2012, HHS and the Internal Revenue Service arrogated to themselves the power to rewrite the law and published a regulation simply decreeing that subsidies would be available through the federal exchanges too. The IRS devoted only a single paragraph to its deviation from the statute, even though the “established by a State” language appears nine times in the law’s text. The rule claims that an exchange established on behalf of a state is a “federally established state-established exchange,” as if HHS is the 51st state.

Careful spadework into ObamaCare’s legislative history by Case Western Reserve law professor Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute has demonstrated that this jackalope rule-making was contrary to Congress’s intent…

Mr. Obama has conceded that “obviously we didn’t do a good enough job in terms of how we crafted the law.” The right and only lawful way to repair ObamaCare is through another act of Congress. In Halbig, the judiciary can remind the Obama Administration of this basic constitutional truth.

Jonathan Adler critiques the Halbig district court’s ruling in favor of the IRS here.

Find lots of commentary by me on the Halbig cases at DarwinsFool.com.

This reference guide contains all the information you could want about these cases – and more.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement