CAC Responds To Fourth Circuit Ruling In King v. Burwell

Washington, DC – On news that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued its decision today in King v. Burwell (formerly King v. Sebelius), upholding key tax subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, CAC President Doug Kendall issued the following reaction:

 

“Minutes after the D.C. Circuit ruling in Halbig v. Burwell, which would effectively gut the ACA, a unanimous three-judge panel on the Fourth Circuit came to precisely the opposite conclusion. Of the eight judges who have now considered the plaintiffs’ rather absurd challenge to the meaning of the ACA, six have decisively rejected these claims.

 

“We are confident that the en banc D.C. Circuit will follow suit in the near future.”

 

#

 

Resources:

 

*  CAC “friend of the court” brief on behalf of Senate Majority Leader Reid, House Democratic Leader Pelosi, committee chairs in office when the ACA was passed, plus state officials in office when the ACA was being debated: 

http://theusconstitution.org/sites/default/files/briefs/King_v_Sebelius_CAC_Amicus_Final.pdf 

 

*  “’Kick Millions Off Health Insurance’ To Save Four People . . . Nothing?” Simon Lazarus, May 28, 2014: http://theusconstitution.org/text-history/2689/%E2%80%9Ckick-millions-health-insurance%E2%80%9D-save-four-people-nothing 

 

##

 

Constitutional Accountability Center (www.theusconstitution.org) is a think tank, public interest law firm, and action center dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of the Constitution’s text and history.

 

###

More from

Voting Rights and Democracy
December 9, 2025

CAC Release: Major Campaign Finance Case Tests Court’s Willingness to Respect Congress’s Policy Judgments Aimed at Curbing Harmful Corruption

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in National Republican...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, David H. Gans
Rule of Law
December 8, 2025

CAC Release: Conservative Justices Neglect History at Oral Argument in Monumental Case about Independent Agencies

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Trump v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Michelle Berger
Rule of Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Pung v. Isabella County

In Pung v. Isabella County, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment is implicated when a local government seizes real property to satisfy a tax debt and then...
Civil and Human Rights
December 5, 2025

Supreme Court Lets Stand a Two-Tiered System of Justice That Deprives Military Families of the Same Rights Afforded to Civilians

The Rutherford Institute
WASHINGTON, DC — In a ruling that leaves thousands of military servicemembers and their families...
Rule of Law
December 9, 2025

Raises Serious Legal Questions: Wydra on Boat Strike

Bloomberg
Constitutional Accountability Center President Elizabeth Wydra weighs in on the second strike by the United...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Al Otro Lado v. Trump

In Al Otro Lado v. Trump, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California is considering whether the Trump Administration can prohibit certain people from seeking asylum at ports of entry.