Tag Archives: King v. Burwell

Barnett and Walker on Coenen and Davis on the New Major Questions Doctrine (AdLaw Bridge Series)

by Christopher J. Walker — Tuesday, May 16, 2017@chris_j_walker

As my co-blogger Aaron Nielson covered in his D.C. Circuit Review — Reviewed “postscript” two weeks ago, the D.C. Circuit recently denied rehearing in United States Telecom Ass’n v. FCC, which was the challenge to the FCC’s net neutrality regulations. Among more than one hundred pages of separate opinions concerning the denial, Judge Kavanaugh has a […]

A Government Defeat in House v. Burwell

by Nicholas Bagley — Friday, May 13, 2016

Having previously held that the House of Representatives has standing to sue, the district court in House v. Burwell has now held that the Obama administration is violating the Appropriations Clause in making cost-sharing payments under the ACA in the absence of the requisite congressional appropriation. The court has stayed its decision pending appeal, meaning […]

King v. Burwell: Is the Chief Justice a Tax Lawyer?

by Christopher J. Walker — Monday, Sept. 14, 2015@chris_j_walker

As Andy noted in his post last week, the Pepperdine Law Review will be publishing soon a symposium on the implications of King v. Burwell on tax law and administration.  In his contribution, Andy asks: Where Were the Tax Professors? In our contribution, my tax prof colleague Stephanie Hoffer and I focus on the reasoning of the majority […]

King v. Burwell: Where Were the Tax Professors?

by Andy Grewal — Friday, Sept. 11, 2015

As regular readers know, Notice & Comment was a go-to source for commentary on King v. Burwell. I thus thought that readers might be interested in my recent symposium essay, King v. Burwell: Where Were the Tax Professors?. I’ve reproduced the abstract below and the full piece can be downloaded here: King v. Burwell drew unusually […]

Deference’s Discontents

by Jeff Pojanowski — Tuesday, June 30, 2015

I’d like to chip in with some quick thoughts on recent, skeptical rumblings in the Court about deference to administrative agencies. What interests me most here is not the arguments separate Justices are making against deference—they are not new to administrative law thinking, though their return to judicial discussion is more novel. Rather, I’m wondering […]

King v. Burwell: Why Is the Scope of Chevron So Unpredictable?

by Connor N. Raso — Sunday, June 28, 2015

The majority in King v. Burwell surprised many observers by declining to grant Chevron deference to the IRS interpretation of the Affordable Care Act at issue. Instead, the Chief Justice’s opinion held thatChevron does not apply to questions that are of “deep economic and political significance.” This post does not analyze how this decision relates […]

What King v. Burwell Means For Environmental Law

by Bruce Huber — Friday, June 26, 2015

Ok, I confess that the title to this post is a bit grandiose. At a minimum, we’ll have much more material on which to base our prognostications about the legality of the Clean Power Plan after Michigan v. EPA is decided on Friday or Monday. But I can’t resist accepting Chris Walker’s invitation to think for just […]

What King v. Burwell Means for Statutory Interpretation

by Christopher J. Walker — Thursday, June 25, 2015@chris_j_walker

This morning I blogged about what the 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell means for administrative law (post here). Part of my conclusion there is that the Court’s decision in King chips away at the bright-line rule-based approach to Chevron deference—an approach Justice Scalia has championed—by reinvigorating the major questions doctrine. King, however, constitutes a major […]

What King v. Burwell Means for Administrative Law

by Christopher J. Walker — Thursday, June 25, 2015@chris_j_walker

Today the Court handed down a 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell, upholding the Government’s regulation interpreting the Affordable Care Act to allow for tax subsidies in healthcare exchanges established by the Federal Government. This is a big win for the Obama Administration in a case that most felt could go either way after the […]

Did the IRS Already Admit Defeat in King v. Burwell?

by Andy Grewal — Monday, June 15, 2015

In researching Section 4980H assessable payments, commonly referred to as the ACA employer penalty, I came across some potentially significant statements in IRS Notice 2011-36, dated May 23, 2011. The Notice, which reflects an official statement of the IRS, solicits public comments related to regulations under Section 4980H. In describing the statutory scheme, the IRS […]