This is a compliance blog; we don’t do politics. But we can’t explain compliance consequences of the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell opinion without acknowledging the political context.

Here’s the June calendar of the Supreme Court of the United States.









Opinions are posted online on Monday or Tuesday, typically. As early as tomorrow, or as late as June 30, we will read whether the IRS and HHS had authority to grant subsidies to people who bought health insurance through   We expect the government to prevail, 5-4. If we’re right, nothing changes, legally, but much changes practically. That’s because so many employers have tried to wait-out the ACA, hoping for political or judicial relief from its burdens. With a few exceptions (e.g., the Cadillac Plan tax), this appeal is their last hope. If they guessed wrong, there will be a mad scramble for hurried advice and assistance, some of which will be reliable.

If the government loses, there will be no employer mandate for employers with employees only in states served by That’s because subsidy certification triggers the employer mandate taxes assessed under 26 U.S.C. § 4980H. No subsidy, no tax. Of course, Congress could change the law but prospects for agreement seem dim. Senate Democrats are likely to filibuster any change except deletion from Code § 36B(b)(2) of the phrase, “established by the State under 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” Republicans have not yet revealed an alternative that is likely to have overwhelming popular support. Stalemate seems to be the most likely outcome.

Stalled legislation could tempt the White House to try another “executive action” detour around Congress, but the hostile judicial reception to the President’s executive action on immigration might cool that ardor. And, with a Presidential election looming, Democrats might prefer to blame Republicans for millions of people losing their subsidized health insurance.

We’ll share our more particular thoughts within hours of reading the Supreme Court opinion.

Update:  People rooting for the plaintiffs here should be encouraged by Justice Roberts’ joinder of this part of the opinion in Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO LLC, 576 U.S. ___ (June 15, 2015):

More importantly, we would lack the authority to re­write the statute even if we believed that uncompensated fee litigation would fall particularly hard on the bank­ruptcy bar. “Our unwillingness to soften the import of Con­gress’ chosen words even if we believe the words lead to a harsh outcome is longstanding,” and that is no less true in bankruptcy than it is elsewhere. Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U. S. 526, 538 (2004). Whether or not the Government’s theory is desirable as a matter of policy, Congress has not granted us “roving authority . . . to allow counsel fees . . . whenever [we] might deem them warranted.” Alyeska Pipeline, supra, at 260. Our job is to follow the text even if doing so will supposedly “undercut a basic objective of the statute,” post, at 3. Section 330(a)(1) itself does not authorize the award of fees for defending a fee application, and that is the end of the matter.

Update:  “The Supreme Court has added non-argument sessions for the announcement of opinions on Thursday, June 25, 2015, and Friday, June 26, 2015, at 10 a.m.”  See