Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Health Law Challenge Health care experts say an adverse ruling would be catastrophic for the health insurance program that the president has fought so hard to enact and preserve.


Supreme Court Agrees To Hear New Health Law Challenge

  • Download
  • <iframe src="" width="100%" height="290" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" title="NPR embedded audio player">
  • Transcript


Another blow for the White House today - the Supreme Court, in a rare and unexpected move, agreed to hear a new challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Health care experts say an adverse ruling would be catastrophic for the health insurance program that the president has fought hard to enact and preserve. NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports on this latest development.

NINA TOTENBERG, BYLINE: The case centers on what some opponents of the law once called a glitch. They've seized on that glitch to dismantle the heart of the health care law - the tax credits and subsidies that make health insurance affordable for millions of low and middle income Americans. What's more, today's action by the Supreme Court would appear to signal that at least four justices think the law's opponents have a reasonable case. The issue before the court is this - under the health care law, each state is to set up its own health care exchange. And if it does not do so, the federal government steps in.

As things have turned out, 36 states - two-thirds - have deferred to the federal government, most because of opposition from state Republicans and a few because of state problems in setting up exchanges on their own. The problem is that one subsection of the health care law says that the tax credits and health insurance subsidies that are the heart of the law can only be paid up out by state-run exchanges. Opponents of the law contend this language means that low and middle income people buying insurance from the federally run exchanges are ineligible for the subsidies and tax credits. The federal government counters that under the explicit terms of the statute, a federally-run exchange is a state exchange. At the White House today, spokesman Josh Earnest expressed confidence that the administration would prevail.

JOSH EARNEST: The congressional intent here is quite clear. They intended for customers who signed up for health insurance through the marketplace to be eligible to receive assistance from the government to make their premiums more affordable. Now, that is, after all, one of the principal goals of the Affordable Care Act.

TOTENBERG: But the Supreme Court's decision to step into the case now is an ominous sign for the administration. The court rarely intervenes in a controversy when there's no disagreement in the lower courts, the exception being if a federal law or regulation has been struck down. And so far, only one federal appeals court has ruled on this challenge, dismissing and upholding the current system. Nonetheless, Obamacare opponents have pressed the Supreme Court to step in now even as other appellate courts are on the verge of hearing similar appeals. Lawyer Michael Carvin.

MICHAEL CARVIN: Billions of dollars are flowing out of the federal treasury. At some point you're going to have to decide this case. You should decide it sooner rather than later.

TOTENBERG: Supporters of the law scoffed at that argument. Elizabeth Wydra is chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center.

ELIZABETH WYDRA: The argument, frankly, is made up out of whole cloth in an attempt to get rid of a law that political opponents do not like.

TOTENBERG: But the Supreme Court - or at least four justices - seem to take the argument more seriously than that. It takes the votes of four members of the court to grant review of a case. So, today's decision to do that means the court will hear arguments in the ACA case this spring with a decision by summer. Health experts agree the stakes will be high.

TIMOTHY JOST: They could have just catastrophic consequences.

TOTENBERG: Washington & Lee University law professor Timothy Jost explains that because the provisions of the health care law are so interconnected, a ban on subsidies in 36 states would have cascading effects. Not only would millions of Americans see their premiums jump as much as 75 percent, but employers in those states would no longer face penalties for failure to provide employee health insurance. And the individual mandate would be greatly diminished. Nina Totenberg, NPR News, Washington.

Copyright © 2014 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at for further information.

NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.