Circuit splits—cases in which two different federal appellate courts reach conflicting decisions on the meaning or constitutionality of a provision of federal law—make up the bulk of the U.S. Supreme Court’s caseload, and such splits arise quite frequently. Yet last month, on July 22, something happened that observers of federal appellate court rulings rarely, if ever, see: Two federal appellate courts issued conflicting decisions that day on an identical question of first impression concerning the lawfulness of federal health benefit exchanges established to facilitate the purchase of insurance under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in states that did not create their own exchanges.
The ultimate outcome of this legal battle is critical to the success or failure of the so-called Obamacare law in the 36 states that have not created their own health care exchanges. On July 22, a three-judge U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit panel ruled 2-1 that the Internal Revenue Service exceeded its power under the Obamacare law by providing subsidies to those who purchased insurance on federal exchanges. According to the D.C. Circuit majority, the law only permitted such subsidies to be provided to those who purchased insurance on state-operated exchanges.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
