Private: ACA Functions on More Than a Few Words Stripped of Their Context, a King v. Burwell Recap

by Jeremy Leaming

Following oral argument in the latest effort to topple the Affordable Care Act, SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston says a major part of the private discussions among Supreme Court justices will center on the harm they could do to the nation’s health care system if a majority buys the challengers’ argument in King v. Burwell.

ACS President Caroline Fredrickson on MSNBC’s “The Cycle,” tore into the challengers’ statutory based argument, saying it strays far from precedent on statutory interpretation.

Fredrickson, discussing a federalism-based question from Justice Anthony Kennedy during the March 4 oral arguments, said it would be absurd to believe Congress placed into the health care legislation a “ticking time-bomb,” which would strip tax support from large numbers of the currently insured in an effort to coerce 34 states to set up their own exchanges.

Instead Fredrickson argued that the justices should look at the text within its context. This is basic statutory interpretation learned early in law school, she said.

See video of “The Cycle," below:

Supreme Court