MENU

Tax Law

King v. Burwell: What are the consequences?

Short video debate with Michael Cannon and Robert Weiner
Michael Cannon, Robert N. Weiner June 22, 2015

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Robert N. Weiner, Partner at Arnold & Porter debate the potential consequences of the Court’s ruling concerning whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

King v. Burwell: What is in dispute?

Short video debate with Michael Cannon and Robert Weiner
Michael Cannon, Robert N. Weiner June 22, 2015

Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, and Robert N. Weiner, Partner at Arnold & Porter debate whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

Direct Marketing v. Brohl - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 4-14-15 featuring Kristin Gutting
Kristin Gutting April 14, 2015

On March 3, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Direct Marketing Association v. Brohl.  This case involves a Colorado law requiring retailers who do not collect Colorado sales or use tax to notify Colorado customers of their use-tax liability and to report tax-related information to customers and the Colorado Department of Revenue.  A trade association of online retailers filed suit in federal district court to challenge the law, and obtained an injunction against its enforcement.  On appeal, however, the Tenth Circuit reversed that judgment, holding that the Tax Injunction Act deprived the district court of jurisdiction over the case.  The question before the Supreme Court is whether the Act did indeed bar the online retailers’ suit.

In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Thomas, the Court held that the Tax Injunction Act did not bar the trade association's lawsuit.  The judgment of the Tenth Circuit was therefore reversed and the case remanded.  Justice Kennedy filed a concurring opinion.  Justice Ginsburg filed a concurring opinion, which Justice Breyer joined, and which Justice Sotomayor joined in part. 

To discuss the case, we have Kristin Gutting, an associate professor of law at the Charleston School of Law. 

King v. Burwell: U.S. Supreme Court Preview of the Next Challenge to the Affordable Care Act - Event Audio/Video

Federalism & Separation of Powers Practice Group
Jonathan H. Adler, Simon Lazarus, Carrie Severino, Robert N. Weiner, Robert Barnes, Dean A. Reuter February 26, 2015

On March 4, 2015 the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on King v. Burwell. The Federalist Society proudly hosts a panel discussion ahead of the oral arguments. King v. Burwell focuses on whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law; Director, Center for Business Law and Regulation, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
  • Mr. Simon Lazarus, Senior Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center
  • Ms. Carrie Severino, Chief Counsel and Policy Director, Judicial Crisis Network
  • Mr. Robert N. Weiner, Arnold & Porter LLP
  • Moderator: Mr. Robert Barnes, Reporter, The Washington Post
  • Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society

National Press Club
Washington, DC

Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 12-17-14 - featuring Andy Grewal
Andy Grewal December 17, 2014

On December 9, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Alabama Department of Revenue v. CSX Transportation. The question presented in the case is twofold: (1) whether a state violates the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 (4-R Act) by “discriminating against a rail carrier” when it requires rail carriers to pay a sales-and-use tax but exempts railroads’ competitors from paying the same tax; and (2) whether, in resolving a claim of unlawful tax discrimination under the 4-R Act, a court should consider the state's broader tax system rather than focusing only on the challenged tax provision.

To discuss the case, we have Andy Grewal, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the University of Iowa College of Law.