KING ET AL. v. BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14114. Argued March 4, 2015Decided June 25, 2015
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act grew out of a long history of failed health insurance reform. In the 1990s, several States sought to expand access to coverage by imposing a pair of insurance market regulationsa guaranteed issue requirement, which bars insurers from denying coverage to any person because of his health,and a community rating requirement, which bars insurers from charging a person higher premiums for the same reason. The reforms achieved the goal of expanding access to coverage, but they also encouraged people to wait until they got sick to buy insurance. The result was an economic death spiral: premiums rose, the number of people buying insurance declined, and insurers left the market entirely. In 2006, however, Massachusetts discovered a way to make the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements workby requiring individuals to buy insurance and by providing tax credits to certain individuals to make insurance more affordable. The combination of these three reformsinsurance market regulations, a coverage mandate, and tax creditsenabled Massachusetts to drastically reduce its uninsured rate.
The Affordable Care Act adopts a version of the three key reforms that made the Massachusetts system successful. First, the Act adopts the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements. 42 U. S. C. §§300gg, 300gg1. Second, the Act generally requires individuals to maintain health insurance coverage or make a payment tothe IRS, unless the cost of buying insurance would exceed eight percent of that individuals income. 26 U. S. C. §5000A. And third, the Act seeks to make insurance more affordable by giving refundable tax credits to individuals with household incomes between 100 per-
[2]
cent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line. §36B.
In addition to those three reforms, the Act requires the creation of an Exchange in each Statebasically, a marketplace that allowspeople to compare and purchase insurance plans. The Act gives each State the opportunity to establish its own Exchange, but provides that the Federal Government will establish such Exchange if the State does not. 42 U. S. C. §§18031, 18041. Relatedly, the Act provides that tax credits shall be allowed for any applicable taxpayer,26 U. S. C. §36B(a), but only if the taxpayer has enrolled in an insurance plan through an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031], §§36B(b)(c). An IRS regulation interprets that language as making tax credits available on an Exchange, 26 CFR§1.36B2, regardless of whether the Exchange is established and operated by a State . . . or by HHS, 45 CFR §155.20.
Petitioners are four individuals who live in Virginia, which has a Federal Exchange. They do not wish to purchase health insurance. In their view, Virginias Exchange does not qualify as an Exchange established by the State under [42 U. S. C. §18031], so they should not receive any tax credits. That would make the cost of buying insurance more than eight percent of petitioners income, exempting them from the Acts coverage requirement. As a result of the IRS Rule, however, petitioners would receive tax credits. That would make the cost of buying insurance less than eight percent of their income, which would subject them to the Acts coverage requirement.
Petitioners challenged the IRS Rule in Federal District Court. The District Court dismissed the suit, holding that the Act unambiguously made tax credits available to individuals enrolled through a Federal Exchange. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed.The Fourth Circuit viewed the Act as ambiguous, and deferred to the IRSs interpretation under Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837.
Held: Section 36Bs tax credits are available to individuals in States that have a Federal Exchange. Pp. 721.
(a) When analyzing an agencys interpretation of a statute, thisCourt often applies the two-step framework announced in Chevron, 467 U. S. 837. But Chevron does not provide the appropriate framework here. The tax credits are one of the Acts key reforms and whether they are available on Federal Exchanges is a question of deep economic and political significance; had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly. And it is especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS, which has no expertise in crafting health insurance policy of this sort.
It is instead the Courts task to determine the correct reading of
[3]
Section 36B. If the statutory language is plain, the Court must enforce it according to its terms. But oftentimes the meaningor ambiguityof certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context. So when deciding whether the language is plain, the Court must read the words in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme. FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 133. Pp. 79.
(b) When read in context, the phrase an Exchange established bythe State under [42 U. S. C. §18031] is properly viewed as ambiguous. The phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges. But it could also refer to all Exchangesboth State and Federalfor purposes of the tax credits. If a State chooses not to follow the directive in Section 18031 to establish an Exchange, the Act tells the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish such Exchange. §18041. And by using the words such Exchange, the Act indicates that State and Federal Exchanges should be the same. But State and Federal Exchanges would differ in a fundamental way if tax credits were available only on State Exchangesone type of Exchange would help make insurance more affordable by providing billions of dollars to the States citizens; the other type of Exchange would not. Several other provisions in the Acte.g., Section 18031(i)(3)(B)s requirement that all Exchanges create outreach programs to distribute fair and impartial information concerning . . . the availability of premium tax credits under section 36Bwould make little sense if tax credits were not available on Federal Exchanges.
The argument that the phrase established by the State would be superfluous if Congress meant to extend tax credits to both State and Federal Exchanges is unpersuasive. This Courts preference for avoiding surplusage constructions is not absolute. Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 536. And rigorous application of thatcanon does not seem a particularly useful guide to a fair construction of the Affordable Care Act, which contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting. The Court nevertheless must do its best, bearing in mind the fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. ___, ___. Pp. 915.
(c) Given that the text is ambiguous, the Court must look to the broader structure of the Act to determine whether one of Section 36Bs permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law. United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 371.
Here, the statutory scheme compels the Court to reject petitioners
[4]
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. Under petitioners reading, the Act would not work in a State with a Federal Exchange. As they see it, one of the Acts three major reformsthe tax creditswould not apply. And a second major reformthe coverage requirementwould not apply in a meaningful way, because so many individuals would be exempt from the requirement without the tax credits. If petitioners are right, therefore, only one of the Acts three major reforms would apply in States with a Federal Exchange.
The combination of no tax credits and an ineffective coverage requirement could well push a States individual insurance market into a death spiral. It is implausible that Congress meant the Act to operate in this manner. Congress made the guaranteed issue and community rating requirements applicable in every State in the Nation, but those requirements only work when combined with the coverage requirement and tax credits. It thus stands to reason that Congress meant for those provisions to apply in every State as well.Pp. 1519.
(d) The structure of Section 36B itself also suggests that tax creditsare not limited to State Exchanges. Together, Section 36B(a), which allows tax credits for any applicable taxpayer, and Section 36B(c)(1), which defines that term as someone with a household income between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty line, appear to make anyone in the specified income range eligible for a tax credit. According to petitioners, however, those provisions are an empty promise in States with a Federal Exchange. In their view, an applicable taxpayer in such a State would be eligible for a tax credit, but the amount of that tax credit would always be zero because of two provisions buried deep within the Tax Code. That argument fails because Congress does not alter the fundamental details of a regulatory scheme in vague terms or ancillary provisions. Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc., 531 U. S. 457. Pp. 19 20.
(e) Petitioners plain-meaning arguments are strong, but the Acts context and structure compel the conclusion that Section 36B allows tax credits for insurance purchased on any Exchange created under the Act. Those credits are necessary for the Federal Exchanges to function like their State Exchange counterparts, and to avoid the type of calamitous result that Congress plainly meant to avoid. Pp. 2021.
759 F. 3d 358, affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which KEN-
[5]
NEDY, GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined.
King v Burwell, Dissenting Opinion of Justice Scalia, Excerpts
At page 21: "We should start calling this law SCOTUScare."
[excerpts]
[1]
1 Cite as: 576 U. S. ____ (2015)
SCALIA, J., dissenting
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 14114 DAVID KING, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. SYLVIA BURWELL, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
[June 25, 2015]
JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO join, dissenting.
The Court holds that when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says Exchange established by the State it means Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government. That is of course quite absurd, and the Courts 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.
I The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes major reforms to the American health-insurance market.It provides, among other things, that every State shall . . .establish an American Health Benefit Exchangea marketplace where people can shop for health-insurance plans. 42 U. S. C. §18031(b)(1). And it provides that if a State does not comply with this instruction, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must establish and operate such Exchange within the State. §18041(c)(1). A separate part of the Acthoused in §36B of the Internal Revenue Codegrants premium tax credits to subsidize certain purchases of health insurance made on Exchanges. The tax credit consists of premium assistance amounts for coverage months. 26 U. S. C. §36B(b)(1). An individual has a coverage month only when he is cov-
[2]
ered by an insurance plan that was enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under [§18031]. §36B(c)(2)(A). And the law ties the size of the premium assistance amount to the premiums for health plans which cover the individual and which were enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State under [§18031]. §36B(b)(2)(A). The premium assistance amount further depends on the cost of certain other insurance plans offered through the same Exchange. §36B(b)(3)(B)(i).
This case requires us to decide whether someone who buys insurance on an Exchange established by the Secretary gets tax credits. You would think the answer would be obviousso obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it. In order to receive any money under §36B, an individual must enroll in an insurance plan through an Exchange established by the State. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is not a State. So an Exchange established by the Secretary is not an Exchange established by the Statewhich means people who buy health insurance through such an Exchange get no money under §36B.
Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is established by the State. It is hard to come up with a clearer way to limit tax credits to state Exchanges than to use the words established by the State. And it is hard to come up with a reason to include the words by the State other than the purpose of limiting credits to state Exchanges. [T]he plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is always to be preferred to any curious, narrow, hidden sense that nothing but the exigency of a hard case and the ingenuity and study of an acute and powerful intellect would discover. Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 370 (1925) (internal quotation marks omitted). Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to
[3]
yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.
II The Court interprets §36B to award tax credits on both federal and state Exchanges. It accepts that the most natural sense of the phrase Exchange established by the State is an Exchange established by a State. Ante, at 11. (Understatement, thy name is an opinion on the Afford- able Care Act!) Yet the opinion continues, with no semblance of shame, that it is also possible that the phrase refers to all Exchangesboth State and Federal. Ante, at 13. (Impossible possibility, thy name is an opinion on the Affordable Care Act!) The Court claims that the context and structure of the Act compel [it] to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase. Ante, at 21.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Court that sound interpretation requires paying attention to the whole law, not homing in on isolated words or even isolated sections. Context always matters. Let us not forget, however, why context matters: It is a tool for understanding the terms of the law, not an excuse for rewriting them.
Any effort to understand rather than to rewrite a law must accept and apply the presumption that lawmakers use words in their natural and ordinary signification. Pensacola Telegraph Co. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 96 U. S. 1, 12 (1878). Ordinary connotation does not always prevail, but the more unnatural the proposed interpretation of a law, the more compelling the contextual evidence must be to show that it is correct. Todays interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of.Who would ever have dreamt that Exchange established by the State means Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government? Little short of an express statutory definition could justify adopting this singular reading.
[4]
Yet the only pertinent definition here provides that State means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 42 U. S. C. §18024(d). Because the Secretary is neither one of the 50 States nor the District of Columbia, that definition positively contradicts the eccentric theory that an Exchange established by the Secretary has been established by the State.
Far from offering the overwhelming evidence of meaning needed to justify the Courts interpretation, other contextual clues undermine it at every turn. To begin with, other parts of the Act sharply distinguish between the establishment of an Exchange by a State and the establishment of an Exchange by the Federal Government. The States authority to set up Exchanges comes from one provision, §18031(b); the Secretarys authority comes from an entirely different provision, §18041(c). Funding for States to establish Exchanges comes from one part of thelaw, §18031(a); funding for the Secretary to establish Exchanges comes from an entirely different part of the law, §18121. States generally run state-created Exchanges; the Secretary generally runs federally created Exchanges. §18041(b)(c). And the Secretarys authority to set up an Exchange in a State depends upon the States [f]ailure to establish [an] Exchange. §18041(c) (emphasis added). Provisions such as these destroy any pretense that a federal Exchange is in some sense also established by a State.
Reading the rest of the Act also confirms that, as relevant here, there are only two ways to set up an Exchange in a State: establishment by a State and establishment by the Secretary. §§18031(b), 18041(c). So saying that an Exchange established by the Federal Government is established by the State goes beyond giving words bizarre meanings; it leaves the limiting phrase by the State with no operative effect at all. That is a stark violation of the elementary principle that requires an interpreter to give
[5]
effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a statute. Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U. S. 147, 152 (1883). In weighing this argument, it is well to remember the difference between giving a term a meaning that duplicates another part of the law, and giving a term no meaning at all. Lawmakers sometimes repeat themselveswhether out of a desire to add emphasis, a sense of belt-andsuspenders caution, or a lawyerly penchant for doublets (aid and abet, cease and desist, null and void). Lawmakers do not, however, tend to use terms that have no operation at all. Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 174 (1803). So while the rule against treating a term as a redundancy is far from categorical, the rule against treating it as a nullity is as close to absolute as interpretive principles get. The Courts reading does not merely give by the State a duplicative effect; it causes the phrase to have no effect whatever.
Making matters worse, the reader of the whole Act will come across a number of provisions beyond §36B that referto the establishment of Exchanges by States. Adopting the Courts interpretation means nullifying the term by the State not just once, but again and again throughout the Act. Consider for the moment only those parts of the Act that mention an Exchange established by the State in connection with tax credits:
The formula for calculating the amount of the tax credit, as already explained, twice mentions an Exchange established by the State. 26 U. S. C. §36B(b)(2)(A), (c)(2)(A)(i).
The Act directs States to screen children for eligibility for [tax credits] under section 36B and for any other assistance or subsidies available for coverage obtained through an Exchange established by theState. 42 U. S. C. §1396w3(b)(1)(B)(C).
The Act requires an Exchange established by the
[6]
State to use a secure electronic interface to determine eligibility for (among other things) tax credits. §1396w3(b)(1)(D).
The Act authorizes an Exchange established by the State to make arrangements under which other state agencies determine whether a State resident is eligible for [tax credits] under section 36B. §1396w3(b)(2).
The Act directs States to operate Web sites that allow anyone who is eligible to receive [tax credits] under section 36B to compare insurance plans offered through an Exchange established by the State. §1396w3(b)(4).
One of the Acts provisions addresses the enrollmentof certain children in health plans offered through an Exchange established by the State and then dis- cusses the eligibility of these children for tax credits. §1397ee(d)(3)(B).
It is bad enough for a court to cross out by the State once. But seven times?
Congress did not, by the way, repeat Exchange established by the State under [§18031] by rote throughout the Act. Quite the contrary, clause after clause of the law uses a more general term such as Exchange or Exchange established under [§18031]. See, e.g., 42 U. S. C. §§18031(k), 18033; 26 U. S. C. §6055. It is common sense that any speaker who says Exchange some of the time, but Exchange established by the State the rest of the time, probably means something by the contrast.
[...]
[20]
Todays opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual shall maintain insurance or else pay a penalty. 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax. 567 U. S., at ______ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 1545). The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to
[21]
accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ______ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 4558). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an Exchange established by the State. 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.
Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Courts two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (penalty means tax, further [Medicaid] payments to the State means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, established by the State means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.
What a bunch of political gerrymandering and BS !!! The "law" means nothing from this point on!
Scalia does a good job of carving it up. It's looking more and more like a unitary government, all in the employ of the same corporate interests.
Scalia, joined by Thomas and Alito, dissenting at 19-20:
Rather than rewriting the law under the pretense of interpreting it, the Court should have left it to Congress to decide what to do about the Acts limitation of tax credits to state Exchanges. If Congress values above everything else the Acts applicability across the country, it could make tax credits available in every Exchange. If it prizes state involvement in the Acts implementation, it could continue to limit tax credits to state Exchanges while taking other steps to mitigate the economic consequences predicted by the Court. If Congress wants to accommodate both goals, it could make tax credits available everywhere while offering new incentives for States to set up their own Exchanges. And if Congress thinks that the present design of the Act works well enough, it could do nothing. Congress could also do something else altogether, entirely abandoning the structure of the Affordable Care Act. The Courts insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude.
Just ponder the significance of the Courts decision to take matters into its own hands. The Courts revision of the law authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to spend tens of billions of dollars every year in tax credits on federal Exchanges. It affects the price of insurance for millions of Americans. It diminishes the participation of the States in the implementation of the Act. It vastly expands the reach of the Acts individual mandate, whose scope depends in part on the availability of credits. What a parody todays decision makes of Hamiltons assurances to the people of New York: The legislature not only commands the purse but prescribes the rules by which the duties and rights of every citizen are to be regulated. The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over . . . the purse; no direction . . . of the wealth of society, and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment. The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).