King v. Burwell: Six Humpty Dumptys Playing Calvinball

My King v. Burwell recap is up at SCOTUSblog. Excerpt:

In King v. Burwell, all nine Supreme Court Justices agreed on one thing. The King challengers claimed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to issue tax credits and impose the related penalties only “through an Exchange established by the State,” and not through exchanges established by the federal government. “Petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning of Section 36B are strong,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, and their interpretation is “the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.” Justice Antonin Scalia agreed, finding the meaning of that phrase “so obvious there would hardly be a need for the Supreme Court to hear a case about it.”

There was no dissent about the plain meaning of the phrase “through an Exchange established by the State.” All seven of the other Justices joined one of those two opinions. Nor was there dissent about the fact that that phrase, used repeatedly in the statute, is the only provision of the Act that speaks directly to the question presented. Not a single Justice lent credence to the government’s assertions that this was a meritless case, or one that the Court should never have accepted. Nor was there dissent about the consequences of that provision’s plain meaning in the face of broad state resistance to the ACA. All agreed that withholding tax credits in the thirty-four states with federal exchanges could lead to adverse selection in those states, with premiums climbing higher and higher in a “death spiral.”

Where disagreement emerged was over the question of whether the former should alter the latter – whether the potential for adverse consequences “compels” the Court to disregard the universally acknowledged meaning of the operative text. The Court split six to three in favor of rewriting plain text, and rendering the requirement “established by the State” a nullity…

Roberts managed to conclude that “by the State” could be read to mean “by the federal government,” even though he acknowledged Congress explicitly defined “State” in a way “that does not include the Federal Government.” So perhaps spending more time with the statute would not have helped.

The King ruling is actually much, much worse than this excerpt suggests. Read the whole thing. For a reference guide to King, click here.

Greece and the Euro Stagger Towards the Brink

Negotiations in Brussels to resolve the Greek fiscal crisis appear deadlocked, with Athens heading toward default. German Chancellor Angela Merkel insisted that Greece make a deal before the markets open Monday. The Eurogroup will meet again tomorrow on the issue.

The European Union was supposed to create a de facto United States of Europe. But after last January’s Greek election it was obvious that the EU does not speak for Greece, or perhaps anyone else other than the Eurocrats, an amalgam of bureaucrats, academics, journalists, businessmen, politicians, and lobbyists who dominate Brussels.

To most EU leaders common people are an impediment. The Eurocrats reflexively intone “more Europe” in answer to every question, but voters increasingly are supporting protest parties, some populist, some worse.

Big Win for Equal Liberty, Shows How Far We’ve Come

Just because today’s opinion was expected by all doesn’t make it any less momentous. A five-justice majority writing through Justice Kennedy finds that there’s a constitutional right for gay and lesbian couples to get marriage licenses – at least so long as everyone else gets them. (We’ll set aside the question of why the government is involved in marriage in the first place for a later time.)

In sometimes-soaring rhetoric Kennedy explains why the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of both substantive liberty and equality means there is no further valid reason to deny this particular institution, the benefit of these particular laws, to gay and lesbian couples.

Not surprisingly, all four conservative justices dissented. Indeed, it’s interesting that each of them wrote his own dissent, each riffing on the same theme. That is, regardless of your views of how to define marriage this is a decision that should be left to the people in their states, not to courts.

Chief Justice John Roberts in particular said that people who benefit from today’s ruling should celebrate it, should celebrate this development in our society. But make no bones about it, this doesn’t relate to the Constitution. (Where was this principled logic yesterday?)

In any event, this will be a case that is studied for generations. There aren’t clear, bright-line rules about levels of scrutiny or any other legalisms – avoiding that artifice is all to the good – and it’s a landmark ruling that shows how far we’ve come.  It was in 2003 that the Court had to invalidate the criminalization of gay sex and a mere 12 years later it commands state officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Good for the Court – and I echo Justice Kennedy’s hope that both sides now respect each other’s liberties and the rule of law.

Libertarians and the Long Road to Gay Rights

Justice Anthony Kennedy has been called the most libertarian member of the Supreme Court (though Ilya Shapiro finds his libertarianism “faint-hearted”). So maybe it’s no surprise that in the Lawrence (2003), Windsor (2013), and Obergefell (today!) cases, Kennedy wrote a majority decision finding that gay people had rights to liberty and equal protection of the law.

As I note in The Libertarian Mind and in an article just posted at the venerable gay magazine The Advocate, libertarians and their classical liberal forebears have been ahead of the curve on gay rights for more than two centuries: 

As the Supreme Court prepares for a possibly historic ruling, most of the country now supports gay marriage. Libertarians were there first. Indeed John Podesta, a top adviser to Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton and founder of the Center for American Progress, noted in 2011 that you probably had to have been a libertarian to have supported gay marriage 15 years earlier.

Just seven years ago, in the 2008 presidential campaign, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton all opposed gay marriage. The Libertarian Party endorsed gay rights with its first platform in 1972 — the same year the Democratic nominee for vice president referred to “queers” in a Chicago speech. In 1976 the Libertarian Party issued a pamphlet calling for an end to antigay laws and endorsing full marriage rights.

That’s no surprise, of course. Libertarians believe in individual rights for all people and equality before the law. Of course they recognized the rights of gay people before socialists, conservatives, or big-government liberals.

Red Light for Red Line, Yellow Light for Purple Line

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan announced today that he was canceling Baltimore’s Red light-rail line while approving suburban Washington’s Purple Line. However, that approval comes with some caveats that could still mean the wasteful transit project will never be built.

The latest cost estimate for the Purple Line is nearly $2.5 billion for a project that, if done with buses, would cost less than 2 percent as much. The Purple Line finance plan calls for the federal government to put up $900 million, the state to immediately add $738 million, and then for the state to borrow another $810 million.

Instead, Governor Hogan says Maryland will contribute only $168 million to the project, and that local governments–meaning, mainly, Montgomery County but also Prince Georges County–will have to come up with the rest. It isn’t clear from press reports whether Hogan is willing to commit Maryland taxpayers to repay $810 million worth of loans, but it is clear that local taxpayers will have to pay at least half a billion dollars more than they were expecting.

One Consequence of King v. Burwell

Some say that today’s decision maintains business as usual for Obamacare, taxpayers and consumers. The Supreme Court upheld the subsidies (also known as the Premium Tax Credit) to consumers in the 34 states that rely on the federal exchange. Proponents of these subsidies argue they help keep health insurance affordable.

The subsidies lower the out-of-pocket cost to consumers who get them, but at what cost? Consider a 64-year-old consumer in Hialeah, Florida (one of the largest areas impacted by King v. Burwell) who is receiving the maximum subsidy of $7,488 per year. Of the 87 plans offered in the marketplace, 16 entail zero cost to the consumer. Premiums for these “free” plans range from $6,300 to $7,200. There is no incentive for the consumer to shop prudently from these 16 plans. The consumer does not get to keep any unused subsidy, creating incentives to choose health plans with additional features of only marginal value. The taxpayer – not the consumer – picks up the cost of the imprudent choices.

In addition to discouraging shopping based on plan value, the premium tax credit offers a set of perverse incentives, especially on the decision to earn more than 400% of the poverty line and on reporting your income for the upcoming year.

Today’s decision may very well mean business as usual, but there are serious economic issues with how the subsidy is set up.

SCOTUS OKs Liability for Unintentional Housing Discrimination

Stop calling it fair housing law. If it was ever a matter of fairness, it isn’t now.

Under today’s 5-4 Supreme Court holding in Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, you can be held liable for housing discrimination whether or not you or anyone in your organization intended to discriminate. Instead – to quote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who joined with the Court’s four liberals in a 5-4 majority – you might have been influenced by “unconscious prejudice” or “stereotyping” when you lent money or rented apartments or carried on appraisal or brokerage or planning functions. What you did had “disparate impact” on some race or other legally protected group, and now you’re caught up in potentially ruinous litigation in which it’s up to you to show that you had a good reason for what you did and could not have arranged your actions in some other way that had less disparate impact.