The full D.C. appellate court will revisit a July ruling made by three of its judges (2-1) that defunded portions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA, aka ObamaCare).
On July 22, the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled in Halbig v. Burwell that federal exchanges could not issue tax subsidies to offset the cost health insurance. The decision overturned the lower court ruling.
The same day, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled that the tax subsidies were legal.
Federal appeals are reviewed by a panel of three judges and that is usually that.
The court of appeals decision usually will be the final word in the case, unless it sends the case back to the trial court for additional proceedings, or the parties ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. In some cases the decision may be reviewed en banc, that is, by a larger group of judges (usually all) of the court of appeals for the circuit.
In this case, the Court granted a request from the Obama administration to have the case heard by the full court. Arguments are slated for December 17.
Federal court justices are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. These rulings reflect the party of the President who appointed the judges.
In the July ruling by the D.C. court, the two judges in the majority (Griffith and Randolph) were appointed by Republican presidents Bush and Bush. The dissenting judge, Edwards was appointed by President Carter.
The unanimous decision in Virginia was made by nominees of Democratic presidents.
Read more
- ABC
- The Guardian
- The Hill (warning, auto-play video)
- Politico
Rulings
Known for gnawing at complex questions like a terrier with a bone. Digital evangelist, writer, teacher. Transplanted Southerner; teach newbies to ride motorcycles. @kegill (Twitter and Mastodon.social); wiredpen.com