title: King v. Burwell: Desperately Seeking Ambiguity in Clear Statutory Text.
abstract: Does the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) of 2010 authorize tax credits within the thirty-six states that failed to establish health insurance exchanges? That is the question presented in Pruitt v. Burwell, Halbig v. Burwell, King v. Burwell, and Indiana v. IRS. The plaintiffs argue that the statute is clear and forecloses any possibility of tax credits in federal exchanges. The government argues that the statute plainly authorizes tax credits in federal exchanges, or is at least ambiguous on the question. Mere disagreement is not evidence of ambiguity. Reaching the truth requires wading deep into each side's arguments. Whether the relevant text is viewed in isolation or in its full statutory context, the ACA authorizes tax credits only in exchanges established by the states.
authors.affiliation: Case Western Reserve University.
authors.forename: Jonathan H
authors.initials: JH
authors.lastname: Adler
authors.affiliation: Cato Institute.
authors.forename: Michael F
authors.initials: MF
authors.lastname: Cannon
mesh_terms: D062265:Health Insurance Exchanges / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D058991:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D013660:Taxes / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D014481:United States
keywords: ACA; Affordable Care Act; Chevron deference; King v. Burwell; administrative law; statutory interpretation