PP&ACA Back to SCOTUS

For John, BLUF:  These things take time to sort out.  The case will be heard by the Supremes in March of 2015.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Volokh Conspiracy, in The Washington Post, talks to "Linda Greenhouse’s reaction to the cert grant♠ in King v. Burwell".  King v. Burwell?  Here is the first paragraph from the Wikipedia page:

King v. Burwell, Halbig v. Burwell, Pruitt v. Burwell, and Indiana v. IRS are a set of related lawsuits challenging U.S. Treasury regulation, 26 C.F.R. § 1.36B-2(a)(1), issued under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA).  The challengers argue that the text of the ACA only allows for subsidies on state-run exchanges, and that the regulation as implemented by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), providing for subsidies on state-run exchanges as well as federal exchanges, exceeded the authority Congress granted to it.  All of the "v. Burwell" cases were originally titled "v. Sebelius" until Kathleen Sebelius was replaced by Sylvia Mathews Burwell as United States Secretary of Health and Human Services.

So, we know this is about PP&ACA, and the constitutionality of its implementation.  One would think that constitutionality would be important to our officials in Washington.  Or not.  At any rate, here is the lede from The Washington Post:

Over at the New York Times, Linda Greenhouse has a puzzling column on the cert grant in King v. Burwell.  Greenhouse condemns the cert grant in Burwell as “a naked power grab by conservative justices” because they took the case when there was no circuit split and no emergency. According to Greenhouse, the Court’s decision to hear the case absent a split has had an enormous impact on her view of the Supreme Court as an institution:

In decades of court-watching, I have struggled — sometimes it has seemed against all odds — to maintain the belief that the Supreme Court really is a court and not just a collection of politicians in robes.  This past week, I’ve found myself struggling against the impulse to say two words: I surrender.

Law Professor Orin Kerr, the Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School, tries to explain Ms Linda Greenhouse's♥ angst and issues.

My quick take is that she is afraid the PP&ACA may be declared unconstitutional and thus go away in whole or in part.  Since the goal of the PP&ACA is so important, the ends (goodness) justify the means (extra-constitutionality).  Frankly, it isn't this case that is the problem, but the long term consequences of deciding that the clear lines of the Constitution may be smudged if it is for a good cause, or what is the good cause of the day.

Hat tip to the Instapundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  "Cert." is short for Writ Certiorari.  It is issued by a superior court, directing an inferior court to forward the records of a case for review.
♥  Ms Greenhouse is the Knight Distinguished Journalist in Residence and Joseph M. Goldstein Senior Fellow at Yale Law School.