This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/live/2015/jun/25/supreme-court-rules-obamacare-healthcare-law

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme court upholds key element of Obama's healthcare law – live Supreme court upholds key element of Obama's healthcare law – live
(35 minutes later)
10.50am ET15:50
Outside the supreme court in Washington, reporters witness the rare sight of crowds getting rowdy over health insurance tax credit law.
Crowd chants "ACA is here to stay" as people emerge from #SCOTUS pic.twitter.com/Tb0Ck9VOb1
"Still coveted" is the latest chant #KingvBurwell pic.twitter.com/N3VN4Yyl5v
We presume he means “still covered”.
10.48am ET15:48
Presidential candidates weigh in with predictable results. Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton celebrates a victory for her old comrades in the Obama administration.
Yes! SCOTUS affirms what we know is true in our hearts & under the law: Health insurance should be affordable & available to all. -H
Florida senator Marco Rubio – whose state has hundreds of thousands of people who almost lost healthcare assistance this morning – is less enthused.
Despite the Court’s decision, ObamaCare is still a bad law that is having a negative impact on our country and on millions of Americans.
And former Texas governor Rick Perry, another candidate who has a huge number of constituents who rely on the subsidies, also demands repeal (an ambition most other Republicans have largely abandoned as not feasible for the foreseeable future).
Americans deserve better than what we’re getting with Obamacare. It’s time we repealed and replaced it! http://t.co/1EHfbVKBMa
10.41am ET15:41
Millions of Americans in need of healthcare are breathing easy that they will continue to receive financial assistance unabated. Today at least one (and likely more than six million others) are celebrating around the country. My colleague Jana Kasperkevic reports:
Over a year ago, LaDonna Appelbaum was diagnosed with breast cancer.
When the Supreme Court first heard the King v Burwell case on 4 March, she was on the way to one of her chemotherapy appointments. At that time, she had four more chemotherapy appointments to go that were to be followed by radiation.
“I am petrified, to be quite honest, of what can happen. I am more scared right now that the Republicans and the supreme court might kill me rather than my cancer,” she said then, crying.
“I know that’s horrible to say, but I feel like I am getting the treatment that I need. My doctors are wonderful. And then I get scared whenever I hear that they might take the subsidies away or they might repeal it. I honestly don’t know how we would pay for this.”
Today, Appelbaum found out that she gets to keep her subsidies. I just spoke to her over the phone and she was crying with joy.
“We are celebrating. We are just hugging and crying right now. I was just telling Tom [her husband] yesterday that I just can’t imagine how many people are on pins and needles right now and how many people just this week were diagnosed with some horrible disease. I am just so relieved.”
Last week, as she finished her radiation treatment, Appelbaum took a photo with her radiation therapists. In it, she is holding a sign that reads: “The ACA is working!”
10.38am ET15:38
Importantly, the majority’s ruling does not defer to the decisions of regulators (in this case the IRS) but rather centers around a reading of the law itself.
This would make it much harder for a Republican president to change how the law is enforced, since he or she would be unable to simply direct the IRS to change its policies.
From a political perspective, it's key that the Court says the ACA's tax credits are not just permissible but required.
10.33am ET15:33
Roberts accepted the government’s argument that the “plain” reading of the law would have sent the bulk of it into a “death spiral”.
From his majority:
Given that the text is ambiguous, we must turn to the broader structure of the Act to determine the meaning of Section 36B. “A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme … because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.” …
Here, the statutory scheme compels us to reject petitioners’ interpretation because it would destabilize the individual insurance market in any State with a Federal Exchange, and likely create the very “death spirals” that Congress designed the Act to avoid.
He cites a 1973 decision that reads: “We cannot interpret federal statutes to negate their own stated purposes.”
Updated at 10.34am ET
10.30am ET15:30
Scalia is reading his written statement from the bench.
In dissent, Scalia says answer in King is “so obvious there would hardly be a need for #SCOTUS to hear a case about it.”
Scalia (written statement): "Today's decision changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act."
10.28am ET15:28
Antonin Scalia is one of the three justices who dissents – he writes that the majority opinion is “absurd” and overreaches into the lawmaking authority of Congress. “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”
Scalia contends that his colleagues have chosen to “rewrite” the law. He writes that the phrase “established by the state” is a limitation that should be respected, and that the court has gone past its powers in interpreting Congress’ intentions.
This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.
10.24am ET15:24
In the majority opinion Roberts also notes the strong argument by conservatives against the law, but says “in this instance” pragmatism and context win out.
“The context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase,” he wrote.
Argument hinged around one line in the law, which says that subsidies should go to customers “through an exchange established by the state”.
The plaintiffs argued that this is “clear language” and explicitly bars tax subsidies in states who have not set up marketplaces.
10.21am ET15:21
In the majority opinion, Roberts has sided with the government’s argument that the contentious phrase “established by the State” – is a “term of art” and that the law has to be interpreted through context, rather than the plain language of its statutes.
Roberts’ opinion of Congress skills writing laws? “The Affordable Care Act contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting.”
10.19am ET15:1910.19am ET15:19
Roberts and Kennedy have defended the healthcare reforms from conservative assault – two years after Roberts narrowly saved the law in a 5-4 decision in 2012. The Guardian’s DC bureau chief Dan Roberts has filed a quick dispatch from the court:Roberts and Kennedy have defended the healthcare reforms from conservative assault – two years after Roberts narrowly saved the law in a 5-4 decision in 2012. The Guardian’s DC bureau chief Dan Roberts has filed a quick dispatch from the court:
The decision in the high stakes case of King vs Burwell all but guarantees that Obamacare will survive intact until at least the next election, giving its supporters hope that it will become impossible to reverse even if a Republican is elected to the White House.The decision in the high stakes case of King vs Burwell all but guarantees that Obamacare will survive intact until at least the next election, giving its supporters hope that it will become impossible to reverse even if a Republican is elected to the White House.
The case, which turned on the meaning of four words “established by the state”, was brought by Virginia limousine driver David King who sued the then health secretary, Sylvia Burwell, on the grounds that insurance subsidies erroneously paid to those on low to middle incomes forced him to take out cover against his will by pushing him above an affordabilty threshold.The case, which turned on the meaning of four words “established by the state”, was brought by Virginia limousine driver David King who sued the then health secretary, Sylvia Burwell, on the grounds that insurance subsidies erroneously paid to those on low to middle incomes forced him to take out cover against his will by pushing him above an affordabilty threshold.
King’s lawyer argued that states like Virginia which chose not to set up their own Obamacare exchanges and rely on a federal system instead were not meant to receive such subsidies under a precise reading of the legislation which suggested it only applied in states that had their own exchanges.King’s lawyer argued that states like Virginia which chose not to set up their own Obamacare exchanges and rely on a federal system instead were not meant to receive such subsidies under a precise reading of the legislation which suggested it only applied in states that had their own exchanges.
But six of the nine justices, including chief Justice Roberts, sided with the government in agreeing that other parts of the legislation made the broader meaning clear and allowed subsidies to be paid to exchanges run by states or the federal government.But six of the nine justices, including chief Justice Roberts, sided with the government in agreeing that other parts of the legislation made the broader meaning clear and allowed subsidies to be paid to exchanges run by states or the federal government.
10.14am ET15:1410.14am ET15:14
Chief justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 majority opinion that ruled in favor of allowing the federal government to provide subsidies in states that have not set up their own marketplaces for healthcare.Chief justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 majority opinion that ruled in favor of allowing the federal government to provide subsidies in states that have not set up their own marketplaces for healthcare.
The ruling means that some six million Americans will still be able to afford health insurance thanks to the subsidies provided by their governments, even though their states opted not to create marketplaces. Roberts and fellow conservative Anthony Kennedy joined the four liberal justices of the court in favor of the Obama administration.The ruling means that some six million Americans will still be able to afford health insurance thanks to the subsidies provided by their governments, even though their states opted not to create marketplaces. Roberts and fellow conservative Anthony Kennedy joined the four liberal justices of the court in favor of the Obama administration.
10.12am ET15:1210.12am ET15:12
Supreme court rules for government in healthcare lawSupreme court rules for government in healthcare law
The US supreme court has ruled for the Obama administration in a decision that upholds federal subsidies of Barack Obama’s signature healthcare plan, a major victory for the president.The US supreme court has ruled for the Obama administration in a decision that upholds federal subsidies of Barack Obama’s signature healthcare plan, a major victory for the president.
We’ll continue to update the blog with the fallout from the decision, analysis of the ruling’s consequences and dispatches from our colleagues in Washington DC, including bureau chief Dan Roberts.We’ll continue to update the blog with the fallout from the decision, analysis of the ruling’s consequences and dispatches from our colleagues in Washington DC, including bureau chief Dan Roberts.