White House has already won on Obamacare case

BY SEAN LENGELL

 

The Obama administration scored a major legal victory in the fight over the Affordable Care Act on Thursday before judges wrote a single word.

 

When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed to hear a case on federal subsidies for insurance premiums under the law, it dramatically lessened the odds that the Supreme Court would take it up.

 

“Opponents of [Obamacare] have been desperate in moving to get this case before the Supreme Court, and with today’s ruling from the D.C. Circuit — and in the absence of any future split between the circuit courts — it is possible it will never get there,” said Elizabeth Wydra, chief council of the liberal-leaning Constitutional Accountability Center.

 

Due to the broader liberal bent of the circuit court, which will decide the case en banc, it is likely that the judges will decide in favor of the administration.

 

That would mean that lower courts were not split, making it easy for the Supreme Court to simply punt and refuse to review the case.

 

The administration will face a friendly audience at the D.C. Circuit, where 11 of its active judges were picked by Democratic presidents, including four Obama himself appointed.

 

The case centers on whether unclear wording in the statute means that the federal government cannot offer subsidies to people who sign up for insurance on the federal exchange.

 

Critics of the law argue that the subsidies were only supposed to apply to people receiving insurance from state exchanges. But its defenders say that was not discussed during the long debate over the law and the contested section was simply sloppy wording.

 

“We’ll now see whether the D.C. Circuit will apply longstanding principles of statutory interpretation or will acquiesce to the administration’s request that it be allowed to ignore the plain text of a duly enacted law,” said Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

 

Eight million Americans who have purchased taxpayer-subsidized coverage under the law. The ruling affects consumers who bought coverage in the 36 states served by the federal insurance marketplace.

 

Bolstering the administration’s cause was a decision by another three-judge panel in July that sided with the administration on the same issue. The panel unanimously rejected a claim that the law provides the subsidies only to people who buy policies through state-run exchanges.

 

That court backed an Internal Revenue Service regulation that makes the subsidies available regardless of whether policies are purchased through state exchanges or one established by the federal government.

 

The D.C. Circuit is scheduled to rehear the case Dec. 17.

More from

Rule of Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board

In Jackler v. Merit Systems Protection Board, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is considering whether the Trump administration can ignore critical civil service laws when removing Immigration Judges.
Rule of Law
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Comey v. Department of Justice

In Comey v. Department of Justice, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the Attorney General can fire an Assistant U.S. Attorney in contravention of legal protections...
Civil and Human Rights
July 18, 2026

Arnie Arnesen Attitude July 16 2026

Attitude with Arnie Arnesen
CAC’s David H. Gans joined The Attitude with Arnie Arnesen to discuss the Reconstruction Amendments. Listen...
Access to Justice
----- Supreme Court -----

Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

In Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, the Supreme Court is considering whether employees of federally funded educational institutions can bring Title IX suits for sex discrimination.
Civil and Human Rights
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Wridt v. City of New York

In Wridt v. City of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is considering whether the NYPD’s mass surveillance system is unconstitutional.
Federal Courts and Nominations
July 16, 2026

CAC Release: Todd Blanche’s Record Disqualifies Him From Serving as America’s Lawyer

WASHINGTON, DC – In response to this week’s confirmation hearings on Todd Blanche’s nomination to...
By: Praveen Fernandes