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/us-news/2015/jun/25/obama-healthcare-law-upheld-supreme-court
The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Obamacare upheld by US supreme court as conservative justices rescue law | Obamacare upheld by US supreme court as conservative justices rescue law |
| (35 minutes later) | |
| Chief justice John Roberts has come to the rescue of Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms for a second time as the US supreme court struck down a Republican-led challenge to Obamacare that could have gutted the legislation and stripped millions of Americans of their health insurance. | Chief justice John Roberts has come to the rescue of Barack Obama’s healthcare reforms for a second time as the US supreme court struck down a Republican-led challenge to Obamacare that could have gutted the legislation and stripped millions of Americans of their health insurance. |
| Related: Supreme court upholds key element of Obama's healthcare law – live | Related: Supreme court upholds key element of Obama's healthcare law – live |
| The decision in the high-stakes case of King v Burwell all but guarantees that Obamacare will survive intact until at least the 2016 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 affordability 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 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 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. |
| “Given that the text is ambiguous, we must turn to the broader structure of the act to determine the meaning,” wrote Roberts in a passage that represents a huge victory for the Obama administration. | “Given that the text is ambiguous, we must turn to the broader structure of the act to determine the meaning,” wrote Roberts in a passage that represents a huge victory for the Obama administration. |
| The decision prompted a withering response from conservative justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote a dissent on behalf of the three who opposed the decision. | |
| “This court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped,” wrote Scalia. “So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” | “This court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped,” wrote Scalia. “So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” |
| The ruling is the second time that Roberts, appointed by president George W Bush and usually known as a conservative, has supported the president’s flagship healthcare reforms against legal assault. | |
| In 2012, the chief justice was the swing vote in supporting the government’s ability to levy fines against those who can afford health insurance but refused to take it out. | |
| This time, Roberts argued that under the narrow reading of the legislation urged by lawyers for Burwell, the system of insurance exchanges would have had to change unrecognisably and would again represent a constitutional challenge to the power of the legislature. | |
| “In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people,” Roberts said. | “In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people,” Roberts said. |
| “Our role is more confined – ‘to say what the law is’,” he added, quoting from a case dating back to 1803. | “Our role is more confined – ‘to say what the law is’,” he added, quoting from a case dating back to 1803. |
| Though not completely unexpected given the sceptical reception from a number of justices to initial arguments made in the case, the language in Roberts’s opinion gives a very clear | Though not completely unexpected given the sceptical reception from a number of justices to initial arguments made in the case, the language in Roberts’s opinion gives a very clear |
| “In every case we must respect the role of the legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan,” wrote the chief justice. | “In every case we must respect the role of the legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan,” wrote the chief justice. |
| “Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter. [The disputed] Section 36B can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.” | |
| As well as all four of the traditionally liberal justices, Roberts was also supported by Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing vote in contentious cases, so the ruling was not as close as some healthcare supporters had feared. | |
| Nevertheless, the emphatic endorsement of the chief justice adds to the scale of the victory for Obama, who would have struggled to shepherd a fix to the legislation through the Republican-controlled House and Senate. | |
| It also caps a strong week for a presidency that had begun to look dangerously beleaguered in the face of a Democratic party rebellion on trade that was successfully quelled on Tuesday. | |
| The president was due to make a statement on court decision at 11.30am ET in the White House rose garden. | |
| Critics of Obamacare, which has been a rallying point for Republicans since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, were quick to jump on the decision. | |
| “I disagree with the court’s ruling and believe they have once again erred in trying to correct the mistakes made by President Obama and Congress in forcing Obamacare on the American people,” said presidential candidate Marco Rubio. | |
| “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. I remain committed to repealing this bad law,” he added. | |
| Former Arkansas governor and presidential candidate Mike Huckabee took an even stronger stance blasting the decision as “an out-of-control act of judicial tyranny”. | |
| Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton however praised the court’s decision, tweeting: “SCOTUS affirms what we know is true in our hearts & under the law: Health insurance should be affordable & available to all.” Fellow presidential candidate and leftwing Vermont senator Bernie Sanders praised the court for recognizing “the common-sense reading of the Affordable Care Act” but went on to call for replacing Obamacare with a “Medicare-for-all, single-payer system”. |