King v. Burwell (and Adler v. Bagley)

When the Supreme Court granted King v. Burwell, I accepted an invitation from the Federalist Society to debate (again) the merits of the case with Jonathan Adler, one of the architects of the litigation. Not only is Jonathan a gracious sparring partner, but I thought it was worth explaining to a skeptical audience my view that, on the best reading of the ACA, tax credits are available in states that declined to establish their own exchanges.

A video from that debate has now been posted:

If nothing else, the debate offers a preview of the arguments that we’re likely to see on March 4, when the case will be argued at the Supreme Court.
@nicholas_bagley

Nicholas Bagley

Nicholas Bagley is a professor at University of Michigan Law School, where he teaches and writes in the areas of administrative law, regulatory theory, and health law. Prior to joining the Law School faculty in 2010, he was an attorney with the appellate staff in the Civil Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he argued a dozen cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeals and acted as lead counsel in many more.

Hidden information below

Nicholas Bagley

Nicholas Bagley is a professor at University of Michigan Law School, where he teaches and writes in the areas of administrative law, regulatory theory, and health law. Prior to joining the Law School faculty in 2010, he was an attorney with the appellate staff in the Civil Division at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he argued a dozen cases before the U.S. Courts of Appeals and acted as lead counsel in many more.

The Incidental Economist

the health services research blog

WordPress Management: BKJ Productions
Editors In Chief
Content Manager

Work posted here under copyright © of the authors • Details on the Site Policies page

Subscribe

Email Address*