Abstract
AbstractOpponents of the Affordable Care Act have attempted to topple it in court by challenging the legality of two of its three legs. Three years ago, in NFIB v. Sibelius, Chief Justice Roberts narrowly upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate, in a 5‐to‐4 decision that characterized the mandate as an optional tax rather than as a regulatory command. This year, on June 25, the health policy community exhaled a giant sigh of relief when the Supreme Court upheld the subsidy leg of the ACA structure. In King v. Burwell, Justice Roberts again wrote the majority opinion (this time for six members that included Justice Kennedy), ruling as a matter of statutory interpretation that subsidies for insurance premiums are available not just through state‐based exchanges but also through the federal exchange.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
