Stuart M. Gerson, a Member of the Firm in the Litigation and Health Care and Life Sciences practices, in the firm’s Washington, DC, and New York offices, authored an article in Managed Healthcare Executive, titled “Oral Arguments in King v. Burwell.”
Following is an excerpt:
Oral arguments often poorly predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases. However, the argument in King v. Burwell, which will determine the viability of a central mechanism of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) — tax credit subsidies for economically-eligible citizens — provides useful information. Given the tone of Justices’ questioning, it is likely that seven votes are set and the remaining two are looking for compromise. It is probable that at least one, maybe both, of the uncertain votes — those of the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy — will create a majority to uphold the IRS subsidies in states that did not create exchanges.
