Health care reform won a big victory in court on January 15, when a federal judge in Washington, D.C., rejected a challenge to the new health insurance marketplaces, or exchanges, created under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). . . . [T]he court rejected as unsupported by the ACA’s history the argument that Congress viewed the subsidies as a “carrot” to induce the states to run the exchanges (and so had no need to provide them on the federal exchanges). Although today there is great “red state” resistance to the exchanges, when the ACA was drafted, congressional advocates for states’ rights clamored to let the states run them, and no one assumed that they wouldn’t. The fact that Congress failed to foresee today’s political environment doesn’t change what it originally intended.
For those interested in the appeal, Gluck has posted today on the challengers’ farrago of “kitchen-sink arguments, many of which are incompatible with the basic principles of statutory construction on which their briefs purport to rely and which evince a misunderstanding of the ACA’s procedural history.”