No. 14-114 I Supreme Court Of The United States

Transcription

No. 14-114IN THESupreme Court of the United StatesDAVID KING, ET AL.,Petitioners,v.SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, SECRETARY OFHEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.,Respondents.On Writ of Certiorari to the United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF AMERICANCENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE INSUPPORT OF PETITIONERSJAY ALAN SEKULOWCounsel of RecordSTUART J. ROTHAMERICAN CENTER FORLAW & JUSTICECECE NOLAND-HEILLAURA B. HERNANDEZAMERICAN CENTER FORLAW & JUSTICEAttorneys for Amicus Curiae

iTABLE OF CONTENTSTABLE OF AUTHORITIES .iiiINTEREST OF AMICUS . 1SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT . 1ARGUMENT . 2I. THE IRS REGULATIONS ARE PART OFTHE ADMINISTRATION’S ONGOINGEFFORT TO REWRITE OR SUSPENDPORTIONS OF THE ACA, IN VIOLATIONOF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS. . 2A. The Separation Of Powers Was IntendedTo Prevent The Executive Branch FromDictatingNationalPolicybyAdministrative Fiat. . 3B. The IRS Regulations Were Promulgatedwith No Effort By IRS and TreasuryOfficials to Properly Interpret the PlainLanguage of § 36B. 4C. The Administration’s IndispensableExpert, Jonathan Gruber, UnderstoodCongress’s Intent That Tax Credits

iiWere To Be Available Only ThroughState-Created Health Care Exchanges. . 8D. The IRS Regulations are Part of theAdministration’s Pattern and Practice ofSuspending or Rewriting Portions of theAffordable Care Act. . 13CONCLUSION . 18

iiiTABLE OF AUTHORITIESCases .Clinton v. City of New York,524 U.S. 417 (1998) . 3, 4, 14, 17INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) . 3McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (2014) . 1Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian City,134 S. Ct. 2024 (2014) . 4Pleasant Grove City v. Summum,555 U.S. 460 (2009) . 1Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. EPA,134 S. Ct. 2427 (2014) . 3, 17Regulations26 U.S.C. § 36B . 2, 35 C.F.R. §§ 890.102(c)(9), 890.501(h) . 1726 C.F.R. § 1.36B-2 . 345 C.F.R. § 155.20 . 3, 6Health Insurance Premium Tax Credit, 76 Fed. Reg.50,932 (Aug. 17, 2011). 6

ivOther Sources10 Obamacare Questions Answered by MITEconomist Jonathan Gruber, THE DAILY BEAST, Mar.29, 2012, athan-gruber.html . 9Aaron Blake, Nancy Pelosi says she doesn’t knowwho Jonathan Gruber is. She touted his work in2009, WASH. POST, Nov. 13, jonathan-gruber-is-shetouted-his-work-in-2009/. 12AmericanCommitment, Gruber MIT lecture: “Ihelped write it,” YOUTUBE (Dec. 10, 2014),https://www.youtube.com/watch?v JvZs9w824CE&list UUukNcfwOgI4F4T-H5rn6P3Q . 10Bulletin from Gary Cohen, Director, Center forConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight 2–3(Mar. 5, 2014), available at es-03-062015.pdf . 16Catherine Rampell, Academic Built Case forMandate in Health Care Law, NY TIMES, Mar. 28,2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/29/

tml?pagewanted all . 9, 10, 12Erika Eichelberger, Conservatives Insist ObamacareIs On Its Deathbed, MOTHER JONES, Jan. 24, bamacare-exchanges-conservative-cato-freedomworks. 9Grace-Marie Turner, The Real ObamaCare Test isComing, GALEN INSTITUTE (Aug. 22, re-testis-coming/ . 16H. Comm. On Oversight and Govt. Reform and H.Comm. On Ways and Means, AdministrationConducted Inadequate Review of Key Issues Prior toExpanding Health Law’s Taxes and Subsidies, 113thCongress (Comm. Print Feb. 5, 2014) . 5, 6HHS Notice of Benefit and Payment Parameters for2015, 79 Fed. Reg. 13,744, 13,753, 13,786 (Mar. 11,2014) . 16Jane Hamsher, How the White House Used Gruber’sWork to Create Appearance of Broad Consensus,HUFFINGTON POST, Mar. 18, wthe-white-house-used b 421549.html. 10, 13John Fund, Gruber’s Deception, NATIONAL REVIEW,Nov. 17, 2014, rs-deception-john-fund . 10

viJesse Lee, Word from the White House: Another Day,Another Self-serving Analysis from the InsuranceIndustry, WHITE HOUSE BLOG (Oct. 15, is-from-the-Insurance-Industry . 11Jesse Lee, Word from the White House: HospitalsReaffirm Commitment to America’s Seniors, WHITEHOUSE BLOG (Nov. 17, 2009), iors. 11Jesse Lee, Word from the White House: ObjectiveAnalysis Shows Reform will Help Small Businesses,Lower Premiums for American Families, WHITEHOUSE BLOG (Nov. 4, 2009), smallbusinesses-lower-pr . 11Jesse Lee, Word from the White House: TalkingPoints: Reform Opponents’ Pre-Determined “Study”,WHITE HOUSE BLOG (Nov. 16, etermined-study . 11Kelley Beaucar Vlahos, Despite Dem Claims, TrashTalking Gruber Was Well Paid Adviser forObamacare, FOX NEWS, Nov. 14, spite-dem-claims-trash-talking-gruber-was-well-

viipaid-adviser-for-obamacareand/?cmpid cmty twitter fn . 11Letter from Gary Cohen, Director, Center forConsumer Information and Insurance Oversight, toInsurance Commissioners (Nov. 14, ownloads/commissioner-letter-11-14-2013.PDF . 16Letter from Richard Popper, Director, InsurancePrograms Group, to Pre-Existing ConditionInsurance Plan Contractors (Feb. 15, 2013), ),available at spension.pdf . 16Mark J. Mazur, Continuing to Implement the ACA ina Careful, Thoughtful Manner, U.S. DEPARTMENT OFTHE TREASURY (Jul. 2, 2013), nner-.aspx . 14Nancy-Ann DeParle, MIT Economist ConfirmsSenate Health Reform Bill Reduces Costs andImproves Coverage, WHITE HOUSE BLOG (Nov. 29,2009), sts-and-improves-coverage . 11NoblisNetwork, Jonathan Gruber at Noblis –January 18, 2012, YOUTUBE (Jan. 20, 2012),https://www.youtube.com/watch?v GtnEmPXEpr0#t 1928 . 13

viiiPress Release, CMS, CMS Ensures Higher Valueand Quality for Medicare Health and Drug Plans(Apr. 7, 2014), html. 17Sarah Kliff, Jon Gruber on Obamacare, premiumsupport and health policy dreams, WASH. POST, May21, 2012, policy-dreams/2012/05/21/gIQAT2EofU blog.html . 9Shared Responsibility for Employers RegardingHealth Coverage, 79 Fed. Reg. 8544, 8574 (Feb. 12,2014), /Pages/jl2290.aspx . 15Solicitation Number: AES2009 – TechnicalAssistance in Evaluating Options for Health CareReform, Federal Business Opportunities, (Feb. 25,2009), https://www.fbo.gov/index?s opportunity&mode form&id 239a1e94d4f22683c9cf64fd2ddcf9e0&tab core&tabmode list& . 9Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Health Insurance ReformMythbuster – ‘Health Reform and InsurancePremiums,’ SPEAKER.GOV (Dec. 1, ttp://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/factcheck?id 0142(Internet Archive of Speaker’s Website) . 12

ixStatement by the President on the Affordable CareAct, WHITEHOUSE.GOV (Nov. 14, 2013) . 15, 16Treasury and IRS Issue Final RegulationsImplementing Employer Shared ResponsibilityUnder the Affordable Care Act for 2015, U.S.DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY (Feb. 10, eases/Pages/jl2290.aspx . 15Tyler Hartsfield & Grace-Marie Turner, 42 Changesto ObamaCare So Far, GALEN INSTITUTE (Nov. 6,2014), re-so-far/ . 14, 17

1INTEREST OF AMICUS*Amicus, The American Center for Law andJustice (“ACLJ”), is an organization dedicated to thedefense of constitutional liberties secured by law.ACLJ attorneys often appear before this Court ascounsel either for a party, e.g., Pleasant Grove City v.Summum, 555 U.S. 460 (2009), or for amici, e.g.,McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (2014),addressing a variety of constitutional law issues.Amicus files this brief because it wishes tohighlight the separation of powers concerns raisedby the IRS regulations at issue in this case.SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTIn extending tax-subsidies to purchasers of healthinsurance coverage on federally establishedexchanges, the IRS regulations rewrite a coreprovision of the Patient Protection and AffordableCare Act (“ACA”), without which the law would nothave passed, in a direct assault on the separation ofCounsel for Petitioners and for Respondents have filed withthe Court blanket consents to the filing of amicus curiae briefsin this case. No counsel for any party in this case authored thisbrief in whole or in part. No person or entity aside from theACLJ, its members, or its counsel made a monetarycontribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. TheACLJ has no parent corporation, and no publicly held companyowns 10% or more of its stock.*

2powers. Authorizing the expenditure of hundreds ofbillions of dollars in subsidies, as well as billions inpenalties against employers and individuals, theregulations were promulgated with virtually noconcern for Congressional intent or the plainmeaning of § gtheAdministration’sown“indispensable expert’s” recognition that the lawlimited tax subsidies to insurance coveragepurchased on state-established exchanges.The regulations are the most egregious pproach to implementing the ACA. They evisceratethe ACA’s goal of encouraging state participation andpromote the federalization of this nation’s healthcarein direct contravention of Congress’s intent.ARGUMENTI. THE IRS REGULATIONS ARE PART OFTHEADMINISTRATION’SONGOINGEFFORT TO REWRITE OR SUSPENDPORTIONS OF THE ACA, IN VIOLATIONOF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS.For the reasons set forth in Petitioner’s Brief, thestatutory language of IRC Section 36B isunambiguous that federal tax credit subsidies areavailable only for health insurance coverage

3purchased through an “Exchange established by theState.” 26 U.S.C. § 36B. The Administration’sattempt to rewrite statutory language throughadministrative fiat does great violence to theseparation of powers.A. The Separation of Powers Was IntendedTo Prevent The Executive Branch FromDictatingNationalPolicybyAdministrative Fiat.The IRS regulations 1 significantly amend theACA, and “there is no provision in the Constitutionthat authorizes the President to enact, to amend, orto [r]epeal statutes.” Clinton v. City of New York, 524U.S. 417, 438 (1998). “Repeal of statutes, no lessthan enactment, must conform with Art. I,” INS v.Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 954 (1983), and may beexercised only through the “single, finely wroughtand exhaustively considered [legislative] procedure.”Clinton, 524 U.S. at 439-40 (quoting Chadha, 462U.S. at 951).Last term alone, this Court twice held invalidadministrative agency regulations that ignored orexceeded Congressional authorization. See Util. AirRegulatory Grp. v. EPA, 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2446 (2014)(stating “[w]ere we to recognize the authority claimed126 C.F.R. § 1.36B-2; 45 C.F.R. § 155.20.

4by EPA in the Tailoring Rule, we would deal a severeblow to the Constitution’s separation of powers” andnoting that administrative agencies do not have thepower to “revise clear statutory terms that turn outnot to work in practice”); Michigan v. Bay MillsIndian Cmty., 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2034 ass the authority to “disregard clear languagesimply” because the agency asserts that “Congress‘must have intended’ something” other than wha

McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (2014), addressing a variety of constitutional law issues. Amicus files this brief because it wishes to highlight the separation of powers concerns raised by the IRS regulations at issue in this case. SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT In extending tax-subsidies to purchasers of health