Abstract
In the King v. Burwell oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts—usually one of the more active members of the Court—asked only one substantive question, addressed to the Solicitor General: "If you're right about Chevron [deference applying to this case], that would indicate that a subsequent administration could change [your] interpretation?" As it turns out, that question was crucial to Roberts's thinking and to the 6-3 opinion he authored, but almost all commentators either undervalued or misunderstood the question's import (myself included). The result of Roberts's actual thinking was an unfortunate outcome for Chevron —and potentially for the rule of law—despite the happy outcome for the Obama Administration.
| Original language | American English |
|---|---|
| Journal | Boston University Law Review Annex |
| Volume | 95 |
| State | Published - Jan 1 2015 |
Keywords
- healthcare
- Obamacare
- textualism
Disciplines
- Constitutional Law
- Health Law and Policy
- Law
- Supreme Court of the United States
Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS