King v. Burwell

Definition

King v. Burwell is a landmark Supreme Court case from 2015 that upheld the Affordable Care Act's provision allowing subsidies for health insurance purchased through federal exchanges. This decision clarified the role of federal agencies in implementing healthcare policies and highlighted the importance of legislative intent in judicial review.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. The case centered around whether individuals using federal exchanges were eligible for tax subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, a question stemming from ambiguous language in the law.
2. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the intent of Congress was to provide subsidies for all eligible individuals, regardless of whether they obtained their insurance through state or federal exchanges.
3. The ruling emphasized the importance of interpreting statutory language in a way that fulfills legislative goals, rather than adhering strictly to the text when it could lead to an illogical result.
4. King v. Burwell reinforced the concept of judicial review by illustrating how courts can interpret agency actions and legislative intent to protect individuals' rights under federal laws.
5. This case has significant implications for future cases involving administrative agencies, particularly regarding how courts will view agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Review Questions

• How did King v. Burwell influence judicial interpretation of ambiguous statutory language in relation to agency actions?
  • King v. Burwell demonstrated how courts can interpret ambiguous statutory language by focusing on legislative intent rather than strictly adhering to the text. In this case, the Supreme Court emphasized that Congress intended for tax subsidies to be available to individuals purchasing health insurance through federal exchanges, even though the language could be construed differently. This sets a precedent for future cases where courts may look beyond mere textual analysis to ensure that agency actions align with the underlying purpose of legislation.
• Discuss the implications of King v. Burwell on the concept of Chevron Deference in administrative law.
  • The ruling in King v. Burwell has implications for Chevron Deference by highlighting the importance of legislative intent when evaluating agency interpretations of statutes. While Chevron allows courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations, this case suggests that if an interpretation contradicts clear congressional intent, courts may not uphold it. This reinforces the idea that while agencies have authority, their interpretations must align with legislative goals, which can influence how future cases are adjudicated.
• Evaluate how King v. Burwell shapes the landscape of healthcare policy and administrative law in the United States.
  • King v. Burwell significantly shapes healthcare policy and administrative law by establishing a framework for interpreting federal statutes and protecting access to healthcare subsidies. The ruling affirmed that individuals purchasing insurance through federal exchanges are entitled to subsidies, thereby enhancing coverage accessibility under the Affordable Care Act. This case also sets a critical precedent for how courts will handle future challenges involving administrative agencies, emphasizing that interpretations should reflect congressional intent and promote equitable outcomes in healthcare access.

Related terms

Affordable Care Act: A comprehensive healthcare reform law enacted in 2010 aimed at increasing health insurance coverage and reducing healthcare costs.

Chevron Deference: A legal principle that compels courts to defer to administrative agency interpretations of statutes when the law is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable.

Judicial Review: The power of courts to assess whether a law or government action is constitutional, allowing them to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution.