King v. Burwell and the Validity of Federal Tax Subsidies Under the Affordable Care Act
University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online
Professors Eric Segall and Jonathan Adler debate the merits of King v. Burwell, and each suggests how the Court should rule. Professor Segall argues that the Court should Follow the IRS's interpretation of § 36B- namely, that federal tax subsidies are available in a state with a federally operated exchange, because the law allows the federal government to operate the "Exchange established but the State." Professor Segall emphasizes that Chevron deference requires the Court to defer to the IRS interpretation. In response, Professor Adler contends that Chevron deference is unnecessary because the statutory language is clear: and "Exchange established by the State" cannot be an exchange established by the Department of Health and Human Services. Professor Adler argues that, given the unambiguous language in the statute, the Court need not defer to the IRS interpretation and should rule for the plaintiffs.
Eric J. Segall & Jonathan H. Adler, King v. Burwell and the Validity of Federal Tax Subsidies Under the Affordable Care Act, 163 U. Pa. L. Rev. Online 215 (2015).
Institutional Repository Citation
Eric J. Segall & Jonathan H. Adler,
King v. Burwell and the Validity of Federal Tax Subsidies Under the Affordable Care Act,
Faculty Publications By Year