Academic Fellow Rachel Sachs was quoted today in the SCOTUSblog:
Wednesday’s oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the challenge to the availability of tax subsidies for individuals who purchase their health insurance on a marketplace created by the federal government, continue to dominate coverage of and commentary on the Court. In The Wall Street Journal, Louise Radnofsky and Jess Bravin report that “Justice Samuel Alito ’s suggestion that the Supreme Court could delay for months the impact of a decision to gut the health law revives the possibility that at least a dozen states could take action to limit the effect of such a ruling.” AtFiveThirtyEight, Oliver Roeder writes that “Solicitor General Donald Verrilli won Wednesday’s oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Or at least that’s what the wisdom of the crowd is telling us.”
[…] At Harvard’s Bill of Health Blog, Rachel Sachs notes that “the Court displayed a more sophisticated understanding of the consequences of a decision striking down the subsidies in states that have not established their own exchanges.”
Read the full article here. See Rachel Sachs’ original post here.