Congressman Brendan Boyle Points to New Report Showing Republican Lawsuit Before Supreme Court Could Result in Millions Losing Premium Tax Credits

Press Release

Today, Congressman Brendan Boyle (D-PA-13) highlighted a new report showing that 6.4 million Americans in the 34 states with Federally Facilitated Marketplaces would lose tax credits to help pay for insurance coverage, if the Supreme Court were to rule against the Administration in the Republican, politically-motivated lawsuit of King v Burwell.

In November 2014, the Supreme Court announced that it would take up the case of King v Burwell. The case involves a challenge to providing federal tax credits to consumers who receive Affordable Care Act (ACA) insurance coverage through the Federally Facilitated Marketplaces. Oral arguments were heard on March 4. The Supreme Court will issue a ruling before the end of the term in June.

"In promoting the King v Burwell lawsuit, Republicans are attempting to do through the courts what they have been unable to do in Congress -- undermine and dismantle the Affordable Care Act," Congressman Boyle pointed out. "Republicans and their allied groups have not given up since they lost in June 2012 when the Supreme Court ruled that the ACA was constitutional. They appear determined to not stop until they can strip millions of Americans of their affordable health coverage. "

On the merits, the challengers have an enormously weak case. The text, structure, and history of the Affordable Care Act are clear: premium tax credits are available to all eligible Americans, regardless of whether they live in a State that chose to set up its own Marketplace or chose to let the Federal Government set one up for it.

The law's text authorizes tax credits for all eligible individuals, regardless of where they live. Specifically, the law provides that a tax credit "shall be allowed" to any "applicable taxpayer" based on income. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that statutes must be read as a whole.

The challengers' argument, if accepted, would frustrate the central purpose of the ACA, taking away tax credits from millions of Americans, and would contradict the language of the Act itself. The law has such titles as "Quality Affordable Care for All Americans" and subtitles as "Affordable Coverage Choices for All Americans."

Indeed, the challengers' argument was created many months after the Affordable Care Act became law -- no Republican legislator during the consideration of the ACA mentioned that those in the Federally Facilitated Marketplaces could not receive tax credits. Furthermore, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in estimating the Affordable Care Act, read the law to say that tax credits were available in all states with Federally Facilitated Marketplaces.

"I believe that the Supreme Court will rule that the challengers' argument lacks merit and that it is clear that the ACA provisions, taken together, require the conclusion that tax credits are available in all Marketplaces under the ACA," Rep. Boyle concluded. "This important report highlights the dire consequences for millions of Americans if the court were to rule the other way."

Source