Morning Must-Read: Nicholas Bagley: Am I Unreasonable?

Nicholas Bagley: Am I unreasonable?: “To prevail, it’s not enough for the King challengers…

…to show that it’s possible to read the ACA to eliminate tax credits from states that refused to set up their own exchanges. They must also demonstrate that the ACA does so unambiguously—and that the IRS’s contrary interpretation is therefore unreasonable. Under Chevron, if the ACA could be read in a couple of different ways, the courts owe deference to the IRS’s authoritative decision about how best to read it.

I confess that I do think Nick Bagley is being unreasonable. They do not have to demonstrate that their reading of the ACA doesn’t apply. All they have to do is induce five justices not to apply Chevron. They don’t even have to offer them a reason to overrule Chevron–just not to apply it in this particular instance. The justices are good at that.

December 2, 2014

Connect with us!

Explore the Equitable Growth network of experts around the country and get answers to today's most pressing questions!

Get in Touch