September 30, 2014 4:55PM # *Pruitt v. Burwell*: A Victory for the Rule of Law By [Michael F. Cannon](https://www.cato.org/people/michael-f-cannon) --- SHARE From [Darwin’s Fool](http://www.darwinsfool.com): > The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma [handed](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/documents/pruitt_v._burwell_summary_judgment.pdf) the Obama administration [another](http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/10125254D91F8BAC85257D1D004E6176/%24file/14-5018-1503850.pdf) – and a much harsher — defeat in one of [four lawsuits](http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2013/12/31/for-reporters-law-professors-citizens-a-reference-guide-to-president-obamas-illegal-obamacare-taxes/) challenging the IRS’s attempt to implement ObamaCare’s major taxing and spending provisions where the law does not authorize them. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provides that its subsidies for private health insurance, its employer mandate, and to a large extent its individual mandate only take effect within a state if the state establishes a health insurance “Exchange.” Two-thirds (36) of the states declined to establish Exchanges, which should have [freed more than 50 million Americans](http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/07/21/halbig-v-burwell-would-free-more-than-57-million-americans-from-the-acas-individual-employer-mandates/) from those taxes. Instead, the Obama administration decided to implement those taxes and expenditures in those 36 states anyway. Today’s ruling was in [*Pruitt v. Burwell*](http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2013/12/31/for-reporters-law-professors-citizens-a-reference-guide-to-president-obamas-illegal-obamacare-taxes/#pruitt), a case brought by Oklahoma attorney general Scott Pruitt. > > > These cases saw two appellate-court rulings on the same day, July 22. In *[Halbig v. Burwell](http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2013/12/31/for-reporters-law-professors-citizens-a-reference-guide-to-president-obamas-illegal-obamacare-taxes/#halbig),* a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the administration to stop. (The full D.C. Circuit has [agreed](http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/09/04/decision-to-en-banc-halbig-v-burwell-is-unwise-unfortunate-and-appears-political/) to review the case *en banc* on December 17, a move that automatically vacates the panel ruling.) In [*King v. Burwell*](http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2013/12/31/for-reporters-law-professors-citizens-a-reference-guide-to-president-obamas-illegal-obamacare-taxes/#king), the Fourth Circuit implausibly gave the IRS the [thumbs-up](http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/08/19/the-fourth-circuits-ruling-in-king-v-burwell-is-absurd-and-should-be-set-aside/). (The plaintiffs have [appealed](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/documents/king_petition_final.pdf) that ruling to the Supreme Court.) A fourth case, [*Indiana v. IRS*](http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2013/12/31/for-reporters-law-professors-citizens-a-reference-guide-to-president-obamas-illegal-obamacare-taxes/#indiana), brought by Indiana attorney general Greg Zoeller, goes to oral arguments in federal district court on October 9. > > > Today, federal judge Ronald A. White issued a [ruling](https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/documents/pruitt_v._burwell_summary_judgment.pdf) in *Pruitt* that sided with *Halbig* against *King*, and eviscerated the arguments made by the (more senior) judges who sided with the government in those cases… [Read the rest.](http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelcannon/2014/09/30/pruitt-v-burwell-irss-illegal-obamacare-taxesspending-suffer-another-defeat-in-federal-court/) ##### Related Tags [Government and Politics](https://www.cato.org/government-politics), [Health Care](https://www.cato.org/health-care), [Constitutional Law](https://www.cato.org/constitutional-law), [Regulation](https://www.cato.org/regulatory-studies), [Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies](https://www.cato.org/robert-levy-center-constitutional-studies) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).