Corporate Accountability

Obamacare challenge could ripple in state

By Kimberly Atkins

 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The second potentially fatal legal challenge to Obamacare takes center stage in the chamber of the U.S. Supreme Court today, and it’s filled with drama, plot twists and political 
intrigue that belie the 
rather dry and technical legal issue the justices will have to decide.

 

Despite the potential theatrics and colorful players — including MIT economist, recently ousted Health Connector board member and foot-in-mouth artist Jonathan Gruber — the case is no comedy. It could strip 8 million people of health care coverage in the 36 states that refused 
to set up health care 
exchanges, and have a negative ripple effect in the states with exchanges, 
including Massachusetts.

 

The legal issue itself is fairly straightforward: The justices must look at the language of the law and decide if it entitles those 
who signed up on the 
federal exchange to receive 
income-based subsidies, or if that benefit is 
authorized only for those who signed up on state-run 
exchanges.

 

That won’t make deciding the case easy for the justices, who must today wade through a flurry of arguments, including the claim by the law’s challengers that comments made in 2012 by Gruber prove that the federal subsidies are illegal. Gruber, long credited to be an Obamacare architect, said the law was designed to “squeeze the states” into running their own exchanges rather than relying on the federal exchange.

 

Though Gruber is cited more than 100 times in court briefs, he may now be little more than a subplot.

 

“I don’t think anyone will ask a question” about Gruber, said Peter Marathas, a partner in the Boston office of law firm Proskauer Rose.

 

Simon Lazarus of the Constitutional Accountability Center, co-author of an amicus brief supporting the government’s position, called the Gruber argument “laughable.”

 

But the impact on the Bay State may be far less funny. When I asked Gov. Charlie Baker last week about a decision that kills federal subsidies, he said it “won’t impact” Massachusetts 
because the state exchange will survive even the death of Obamacare.

 

But Marathas said Bay State businesses could feel the pinch if other states are freed of the federal law’s regulations.

 

“If you’re in Texas or Oklahoma, you’ll say: ‘Come over here, we’re an Obamacare-free state!’” Marathas said.

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
August 7, 2026

CAC Release: Corporations Fare Even Better Than President Trump in the Supreme Court, Constitutional Accountability Center Finds

WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court has just released its final decisions in cases argued...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

AbbVie v. Department of Health and Human Services

In AbbVie v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is considering whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional taking...
Corporate Accountability
June 5, 2026

US Supreme Court backs federal regulators in wins for FCC and SEC

Reuters
CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod was quoted in Reuters discussing recent Supreme Court wins for...
Corporate Accountability
June 4, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Recognizes the Importance of History in Validating FCC Enforcement Process

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Federal Communications Commission v....
By: Smita Ghosh, Joshua Blecher-Cohen
Corporate Accountability
April 24, 2026

How the Supreme Court will have a major impact on the economy this spring

CNN
CAC Chief Counsel Brianne Gorod spoke to CNN about big business at the Supreme Court. Read...
Corporate Accountability
August 7, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Considers Constitutionality of FCC Enforcement Process

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Federal Communications...
By: Joshua Blecher-Cohen, Smita Ghosh