The Stakes in Wisconsin's Supreme Court Race Are High. Here's Why.
Another Anti-Trump Media Narrative Is Showing No Effect With Voters
This Poll of American Jews About Trump and Israel Makes No Sense
Anti-Gunner Organization Just Made the Case for Trans-Identified People to Own Firearms
Here's What's at Stake for Republicans in Wisconsin's Supreme Court Elections
Iran Loads Up Missiles After Trump Issues Threat
Colorado Far From Finished Infringing on Gun Rights
More 'Extremely Dangerous Criminals' Have Been Sent to El Salvador
Patronis Poised for Quick Impact in Congress
Trump Applauds Markwayne Mullin's Sunday Show Appearance Delivering Masterclass on 'Signal...
The High Cost of Coastal Litigation: A Threat to Louisiana’s Economy and Trump’s...
DOGE Will Look Into Lawmakers Who Became 'Strangely Wealthy'
Another Poll Shows Democrats in Disarray Over How the Party Is Handling Trump
Trump's Answer to a Question About a Third-Term Is Sure to Trigger the...
Here’s Why the LA Times Is Suing Mayor Karen Bass
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.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

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