Today is my birthday – and the Supreme Court (or, at least, two-thirds of it) just gave me, most people who follow health policy, and millions of now still-insured Americans a present: King v. Burwell.
There is a lot to say about this decision, but I want to focus on three things: the strength of the conflicting substantive arguments, the possible internal Court dynamics that resulted in the majority and dissenting opinion, and a guess at some deeper meanings of the case for the future of health care in America.
On the substance, this is a case that really could have gone either way. The idea that the Court should apply the words as written, no matter how silly, has precedent in the Court’s history; so does the idea that the Court should try to interpret laws in ways that make them work as intended. The majority, at the end Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion, does recognize this conflict; the dissent, from the more textualist end of the Court, rejects the idea of a tension. The majority has it right in the sense that sometimes the Court does one thing, sometimes the other, and that both are legitimate responses to cases – both are within the culture of legal interpretation that the Court has included over the last two and quarter centuries.
I do think the Court could have legitimately gone the other way, though I think it would have been foolish and harmful, to the country and even to the conservatives who will now bemoan this outcome.
The views, opinions and positions expressed by these authors and blogs are theirs and do not necessarily represent that of the Bioethics Research Library and Kennedy Institute of Ethics or Georgetown University.