Statements (102)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| gptkbp:instance_of |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:argued_on |
March 4, 2015
|
| gptkbp:argument_for_petitioner |
Tax credits should only apply to state exchanges
|
| gptkbp:argument_for_respondent |
Tax credits apply to all exchanges
|
| gptkbp:case_number |
14-114
|
| gptkbp:case_outcome |
5-4 ruling
|
| gptkbp:case_significance |
Major case in health care law
|
| gptkbp:case_types |
Administrative law case
|
| gptkbp:championship |
6-3
|
| gptkbp:court |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
|
| gptkbp:decided_by |
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
June 25, 2015 |
| gptkbp:dissenting_opinion |
gptkb:Judicial_review
gptkb:Justice_Antonin_Scalia gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States gptkb:Justice_Samuel_Alito gptkb:Justice_Clarence_Thomas gptkb:Separation_of_powers gptkb:regulations Executive power Constitutional interpretation Consumer protection Federal regulations Health care policy Judicial accountability Statutory interpretation Economic implications Public trust in government Legal certainty Legal precedent Legal reasoning State sovereignty Judicial activism Constitutional limits Judicial interpretation Judicial restraint Insurance markets Administrative discretion Legislative intent Textualism Public policy implications Legislative clarity Federalism concerns Administrative overreach Clarity of law Constitutional interpretation principles Impact on states Impact on taxpayers Role of Congress |
| gptkbp:effective_date |
June 25, 2015
|
| gptkbp:has_implications_for |
Influenced future health care policy debates
|
| https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label |
King v. Burwell
|
| gptkbp:impact |
Health insurance coverage
Clarified the interpretation of the Affordable Care Act Upholds subsidies for health insurance |
| gptkbp:implications_for_states |
States must comply with federal regulations
|
| gptkbp:involved_parties |
David King and Sylvia Burwell
|
| gptkbp:is_cited_in |
576 U. S. 473 (2015)
|
| gptkbp:judicial_review |
gptkb:Justices_Scalia,_Thomas,_and_Alito
Constitutional interpretation of federal law Examined the authority of federal agencies |
| gptkbp:legal_context |
Health care reform in the United States
Part of ongoing debates over ACA |
| gptkbp:legal_framework |
Confirmed the legality of subsidies in all states
|
| gptkbp:legal_issue |
gptkb:Affordable_Care_Act
Tax credits for health insurance Interpretation of the Affordable Care Act Statutory interpretation of the ACA Tax credits under the Affordable Care Act |
| gptkbp:legal_principle |
Chevron deference
|
| gptkbp:majority_opinion_key_point |
Intent of Congress was to improve healthcare access.
|
| gptkbp:majority_opinion_summary |
The Court upheld the IRS rule allowing tax credits.
|
| gptkbp:outcome |
The court upheld the tax credits
Upheld tax subsidies Affirmed the Fourth Circuit's decision |
| gptkbp:precedent |
Influenced future health care legislation
Chevron deference Set a precedent for future ACA-related cases Subsequent cases regarding health care subsidies Interpreting federal law regarding state exchanges |
| gptkbp:public_perception |
gptkb:Chief_Justice_John_Roberts
gptkb:Justice_Elena_Kagan gptkb:Justice_John_Roberts gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy gptkb:Justice_Sonia_Sotomayor |
| gptkbp:public_reaction |
Mixed reactions from political groups
Mixed opinions on health care subsidies |
| gptkbp:related_cases |
gptkb:Texas_v._United_States
gptkb:Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc. gptkb:National_Federation_of_Independent_Business_v._Sebelius gptkb:Halbig_v._Burwell Influenced later healthcare litigation |
| gptkbp:related_to |
gptkb:Affordable_Care_Act
|
| gptkbp:side_effect |
Expanded access to affordable healthcare
|
| gptkbp:significance |
Addressed the legality of federal subsidies
Interpretation of ACA provisions Clarified interpretation of ACA provisions Impact on health insurance subsidies |
| gptkbp:bfsParent |
gptkb:Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States |
| gptkbp:bfsLayer |
3
|