WASHINGTON Four little words will make a world of difference when the Supreme Court considers a potentially disabling challenge to President Barack Obamas signature health care law Wednesday.

In a case that concerns language and politics more than the Constitution, the ideologically divided court must divine the meaning of one crucial but arguably ambiguous phrase in the 906-page law. Its future, and insurance coverage for millions of people, might hang in the balance, for neither the first nor the last time.

We will be seeing Affordable Care Act cases before the Supreme Court for decades to come, predicted Jonathan H. Adler, a Case Western Reserve University School of Law professor whos a leading critic of the law.

The oral argument Wednesday morning in King v. Burwell marks the latest return of the Affordable Care Act to the Supreme Court since 2012. Then, in a 5-4 decision authored by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., the court upheld the laws individual mandate requiring people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.

This time, too, Roberts might play an important swing role, as the self-appointed protector of the courts reputation.

And, as in 2012, the case has drawn an unusual number of kibitzers. Twenty-one amicus friend of the court briefs, some more trenchant than others, were filed supporting the challengers, and 31 defending the Obama administrations actions.

The Supreme Courts task this time is different from that in 2012 or in 2014, when a 5-4 majority ruled corporations could claim a religious exemption from a mandate to provide contraceptive coverage. Now, instead of determining whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority in writing the health care law, the nine justices must interpret the statutes meaning.

Under the health care law, states are encouraged, but not required, to establish exchanges to offer one-stop shopping for insurance coverage. Obama has likened the exchanges to an online site such as Amazon, a place where consumers can compare plans.

As inducement, the law offers tax credits to those qualified by income who buy insurance through an exchange established by the State. The challenge turns on this phrase.

Driven primarily by Republican resistance, several dozen states declined to establish health insurance exchanges. Nevertheless, the Internal Revenue Service has extended tax-credit subsidies to residents in these states who buy insurance through the federal exchange, HealthCare.gov.

Read the original post:

Fate of health care law is in justices' hands again