A blog post written by Stuart Gerson, a Member of the Firm in the Litigation and Health Care and Life Sciences practices in the Washington and New York offices, Adam Solander, an Associate of the Firm in the Health Care and Life Sciences practice, and Mark Trapp, a Member of the Firm in the Labor and Employment and Litigation practices, was mentioned in “Contradictory Exchange Language in Affordable Care Act Causes Latest Uncertainty Over Law.” Trapp is based in the Chicago office; Solander is based in the Washington, DC, office.
Following is an excerpt:
Today’s 2-1 ruling by the District Of Columbia Circuit U.S Court of Appeals in Halbig, et al v. Burwell holding that the Internal Revenue Service incorrectly interpreted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act provisions governing advance tax credits for individual health plans purchased though state health benefit exchanges — regardless of whether a state has opted to operate its own exchange or defaulted to having the federal government do so — stems from two contradictory provisions in the law.
The potential for the Supreme Court to intervene increases in light of this analysis by the law firm of Epstein Becker Green noting similar cases pending before other federal appellate courts that could leave the issue unresolved:
“The Obama administration has already indicated it will seek en banc review of the Halbig decision by the entire D.C. Circuit. If the full D.C. Circuit reverses the Halbig panel decision, the existing “circuit split” would be resolved, potentially making Supreme Court review less likely. It should be noted that there are similar cases pending in district courts in the 10th and 7th Circuits, that if decided in favor of the challengers could create a circuit split even if the full D.C. Circuit reverses Halbig.”