Skip to main content

What Conflicting Rulings Mean for Obamacare

Share This article

Just hours after a federal appeals court dealt a major blow to the Affordable Care Act, another court issued an opposite ruling.

When Obamacare was first pitched to low- and middle-income people, the plans offered on HealthCare.gov were only affordable because of subsidies, federal aid to help pay the premium.

But on Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit ruled that for 36 states, those subsidies are illegal.

The health care law says the government can only provide subsidies for health care sold through the state exchanges, or online marketplaces.

What do Tuesday's conflicting ruling mean for the future of Obamacare? Travis Weber, director of the Family Research Council's Center for Religious Liberty, addressed that question and more on CBN News Today, July 23.

But 36 states were unwilling or unable to set up an exchange that would have made them eligible for those subsidies.

To address the problem, the Internal Revenue Service set up a rule that allowed the federal government to pay the subsidies in those states anyway.

"The IRS, who's already been politicized, was trying to cover for the administration here in a law that was possibly just poorly drafted. Possibly they thought all the states really would enact these exchanges," Carrie Severino, chief counsel and policy director of the Judicial Crisis Network, told CBN News.

Severino shared more of her thoughts of Tuesday's conflicting rulings below:

The D.C. court ruled that the IRS action went beyond the law, and thus the federal government can't legally pay out the subsidies in those states. The ruling could make Obamacare policies too expensive for people who depend on that money from Washington.

Meanwhile, hours later a Virginia federal court came out with a different ruling. It said the IRS correctly interpreted the will of Congress by allowing subsidies in all 50 states.

So, it appears that once again Obamacare's fate is likely to be in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

"I think there's a good chance the Supreme Court will come to the common sense conclusion that this is another example where federal does not mean state and you can't rewrite this law just to make it say what you wish it had said," Severino said.

Share This article

About The Author

Caitlin Burke Headshot
Caitlin
Burke

Caitlin Burke serves as National Security Correspondent and a general assignment reporter for CBN News. She has also hosted the CBN News original podcast, The Daily Rundown. Some of Caitlin’s recent stories have focused on the national security threat posed by China, America’s military strength, and vulnerabilities in the U.S. power grid. She joined CBN News in July 2010, and over the course of her career, she has had the opportunity to cover stories both domestically and abroad. Caitlin began her news career working as a production assistant in Richmond, Virginia, for the NBC affiliate WWBT