The invisible primary for judicial repeal of the ACA

Slapped on a Friday evening with a hyperpartisan judge's palpably ridiculous decision purporting to strike down the entire ACA, I suspect that many progressive minds restarted a two-stroke motor that's been running since Texas v. U.S. first stained the horizon.

Stroke 1: this suit is too ridiculous even for Republican judges.  It claims in effect that Republicans in Congress repealed the entire ACA in a fit of absent-mindedness when they zeroed out the mandate penalty last December.

Stroke 2: we had the same reaction to the two prior anti-ACA suits to reach the Supreme Court, one of which failed by a 5-4 and the other by a 6-3 count. Will the absurd again become Republican orthodoxy?

Will this legal nightmare recur? Jack Balkin offers crucial perspective:

My call on King

I hope I don't end up thrashing myself for wishful thinking, but I think the Supreme Court will rule for the government in King -- no odds on whether it's Chevron deference (the law is ambiguous, and the IRS interpretation is reasonable) or that the law's intent to provide subsidies to all states is unambiguous. I would hope that my bias -- I think the case is a fraud -- is balanced by superstition --an unwillingness to predict what I wish (overridden by being asked, as part of a list).

I can't wrap my mind around both Roberts and Kennedy agreeing to a) blow up the economy and b) credit the plaintiffs' bogus narrative that Congress intended a form of coercion that no one recognized and that the law does not spell out (a state only gets premium subsidies if it establishes its own exchange).  On both counts I take some reassurance from the dissent as well as the majority opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius, the challenge to the ACA's constitutionality ruled on in 2012.

The dissent in that case shows both thorough awareness of the interdependence of the ACA's core provisions and a wariness of causing massive economic disruption:

The case against King, by Scalia, Kennedy et al

The plaintiffs in King v. Burwell claim that the ACA's creators intended to coerce states into setting up their own exchanges by authorizing state-established exchanges alone to credit subsidies to buyers -- denying that power to the backup federal exchange.

In response to this manifestly absurd assertion of intent, the law's supporters have pointed out that no one involved in the law's design, passage or implementation understood such coercion to exist; that laws that make federal grants to the states conditional on specific state action invariably spell out the consequences of non-participation; that the ACA's clear intent is to provide near-universal coverage; and that the ACA's core provisions were designed to be interdependent, so that denying subsidies to residents of some states would render the law inoperable.

On  all of these points, no participant has been so eloquent as the four dissenting Supreme Court justices in NFIB v. Sebelius, the suit challenging the law's constitutionality, who asserted that the entire law should be struck down.

In their dissent, Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito argued repeatedly that to strike down any core provision -- e.g., the individual mandate or the Medicaid expansion -- was to thwart the intent of the law's creators and render the remaining parts of the law unworkable -- hence the imperative to strike down the whole law.

Abbe Gluck has highlighted the dissenters' most direct assertions of interdependence of parts, laying particular stress on their observation that the law's "system of incentives collapses if the federal subsidies are invalidated" because without the subsidies, "the exchanges would not operate as Congress intended and may not operate at all" (dissent, p. 60).

Equally striking is the dissenters' argument that making the Medicaid expansion fully voluntary, as the Court majority did, would also thwart Congress's manifest intent to provide universal coverage and would thus render the entire scheme unworkable.

The real world case against King: Should the Supreme Court impose "risks and uncertainties" on U.S. economy?

Leave aside for a moment the frankly ridiculous question of whether the text of the ACA authorizes premium subsidies to flow through the federal exchange. .Timothy Jost, surveying 30 amicus briefs filed to support the IRS' reading of the law to that effect, first covers those primarily engaging with the text of the law then turns to those from stakeholders that detail the real-world effects of gutting the ACA.

A note before looking at Jost's powerful survey of these pleadings. Some would argue that these real world effects are immaterial: either the law authorizes subsidies to be credited through Healthcare.gov or it doesn't. As I noted once before, though, the conservative justices who dissented against  the 2012 decision that upheld the constitutionality of the ACA  demonstrated their sensitivity to the real world effects of Supreme Court decisions in that very dissent.

Justices Scalia, Kennedy,Thomas and Alito argued that since the individual mandate was unconstitutional the whole law must be struck down because all its key provisions were interdependent and many of them would wreak economic havoc if left to operate with a core provision removed.  They were quite specific about the potential consequences of disfguring the law without killing it:

If King is upheld, what will Congress do?

Congressional Republicans, who have promised and failed to come up with a legislative alternative to the Affordable Care Act for five years, are now promising that they will have a replacement ready in case the Supreme Court upholds the plaintiffs  this June in King v. Burwell.  Here's Reuters:

Representative Tom Price, Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee, told a conservative forum that the high court's anticipated ruling in the case known as King v. Burwell could cause President Barack Obama's signature domestic policy to unravel quickly.

"We need to be ready, willing and able to move forward," said Price, a leading Obamacare critic who replaced Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan as House Budget Committee chairman earlier this year.

“We believe we are going to get to that point. I believe the president is actually going to be open to a better way,” he added.

A ruling for the plaintiff in King would leave the body of the law intact, albeit in a vegetative state. The exchanges would still exist, though they would be completely dysfunctional in the states covered by Healthcare.gov. Governors and legislatures in those states would be responsible either for finding a way to continue to subsidize the premiums of tens or hundreds of thousands of state residents who have accessed coverage through Healthcare.gov, or for justifying the denial of subsidies to those residents.

Because the law would still be on the books, there is nothing to force the administration to negotiate a full "replacement" that would entail repeal (as in "repeal and replace"). That leaves the question: Are there possible amendments that would meet Republicans' alleged policy goals without shredding the ACA's coverage grant?  Under pressure of abruptly withdrawing coverage from 8 million Americans, is compromise conceivable?