Rule of Law

Members of Congress, State Officials File Appeals Court Brief in Latest ACA Legal Challenge

Washington, DC – Congressional leaders – including House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid – and 125 state legislators who served during the enactment and implementation of American Health Benefit Exchanges under the Affordable Care Act, filed a brief in the case of Halbig v. Sebelius in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 


Halbig is the latest in a line of legal challenges to the ACA, the most prominent of which resulted in victory for the Act in the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012. The challengers in Halbig claim that the Act’s drafters in Congress crafted the law to provide essential tax credits to middle- and low-income Americans, but only on State-operated Exchanges, not Federal Exchanges now servicing 36 states. For this to be true, authors of the Affordable Care Act would need to have intended to sabotage the law with this hidden time bomb, one that would allow opponents of the Act to blow up the Act’s ability to help Americans afford health insurance, defeating the Act’s purpose of providing near-universal health coverage.


The brief filed by Constitutional Accountability Center on behalf of these Congressional and State leaders, shows how the text and structure of the Affordable Care Act refute the challengers’ perverse interpretation of the law, point by point, on every assertion that the challengers make about the intent of the Act’s authors – from elected officials who were themselves authors of the ACA. In short, it was never Congress’s intention that the tax credits only be available to individuals who purchase insurance on state-run exchanges, while Congress understood that the law gave states the option of establishing a state-run exchange or leaving that responsibility to the Federal government.


The legislative record provides literally no evidence for the Halbig challengers’ claim that Congress intentionally barred tax credits and subsidies for needy individuals in states with Federal Exchanges to encourage states to set up their own exchanges.  Congress, the brief shows, had no such purpose and never communicated any such threat.  And, as the Supreme Court has stated, Congress rarely tries to hide “elephants in mouse holes.”


Even more significantly, state officials never perceived any such threat or understood that the statute could operate in the way these ACA challengers claim.  State governments debated many reasons for and against establishing a state-run exchange, but no state legislature on either side of the aisle raised the possibility that the failure to set up a state-run exchange would prevent the people of their states from enjoying the Act’s tax credits and subsidies.  To win this case, Halbig would have to convince the court that all these state legislators were completely in the dark about the most important consequence of the decision whether or not to establish a state exchange.


The federal and state officials on this brief emphasize the ACA’s universally understood purpose of making affordable health insurance equally available to all qualified Americans, regardless of what state they live in.






“Friend of the Court” brief of Members of Congress and State Legislators in Halbig v. Sebelius: 




Constitutional Accountability Center ( 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 Rule of Law

Corporate Accountability

Intuit, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

In Intuit Inc v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is considering whether the FTC’s authority to issue cease-and-desist orders against false and misleading advertising is constitutional.
Rule of Law
June 20, 2024

Opinion | The tragedy of the Supreme Court’s bump stock ruling

Washington Post
Don’t let technicalities, or a refusal to use common sense, become the enemy of public...
By: Nina Henry
Access to Justice
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court rejects artificial limit on liability for speech-based retaliation by government officers

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Trevino, a case in...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Civil and Human Rights
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: Supreme Court decision keeps the door open to accountability for police officers who make false charges

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chiaverini v. City...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
June 20, 2024

RELEASE: In narrow ruling, Supreme Court rejects baseless effort to shield corporate-derived income from taxation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following this morning’s decision at the Supreme Court in Moore v. United...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Rule of Law
June 19, 2024

The Supreme Court’s approach on ‘history and tradition’ is irking Amy Coney Barrett

Washington (CNN) — On a Supreme Court where the conservative supermajority increasingly leans on history as a...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Devan Cole, John Fritze