Corporate Accountability

What Leading Lawyers Made of the ‘King’ Arguments

By Marcia Coyle and Tony Mauro


Lawyers on all sides of the contentious debate over King v. Burwell attended the arguments Wednesday. Here are some first-blush reactions to what they saw and heard:


“The context of the whole law is essential to resolving this case, and that principle was made clear in today’s argument. If the court follows its own precedents that govern the reading of statutes, the Affordable Care Act’s tax credits should be available nationwide.


“Justice Kennedy’s questions underscored the federalism implications of a decision stripping individuals of tax credits. As our brief, as well as the brief filed by Virginia and more than 20 other states make clear, no state understood the ACA to operate in the way that the King plaintiffs argue at the time the statute was enacted. Argument this morning underscored the absurdity of the King plaintiffs’ interpretation of the ACA, which is less about the law and more about the ‘never-ending saga,’ as Justice Kagan put it, of opposition to Obamacare.”


—Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center…