Return to Transcripts main page

Legal View with Ashleigh Banfield

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Subsidies. Aired 12-12:30p ET

Aired June 25, 2015 - 12:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:00:16] ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

ASHLEIGH BANFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone. I'm Ashleigh Banfield. And welcome to LEGAL VIEW.

If you rely on government subsidies to help pay for Obamacare, as more than 6 million Americans do, you can relax. If you happen to be the namesake of Obamacare, you can really, really relax. Yes, like, look how relaxed. As you may have gathered from the president's appearance in the Rose Garden just minutes ago, for the second time in three years, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has upheld a vital component of the Affordable Care Act.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Today, after more than 50 votes in Congress to repeal or weaken this law, after a presidential election based in part on preserving or repealing this law, after multiple challenges to this law before the Supreme Court, the Affordable Care Act is here to stay.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BANFIELD: You thought it was going to be close. It really wasn't. It was a 6-3 decision this morning. The court said Obamacare premium subsidies are legal, from sea to shining sea, whether you bought your coverage on state exchanges, which are seen here in the yellow, or on the much more numerous federal exchanges, which are depicted in blue.

Enter CNN's senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin, knows a thing or two about the Supreme Court, writes about it frequently, justice correspondent Pamela Brown on the actual steps of the Supreme Court.

So I want to go out to the breaking news with you, Pamela, right away, if I may. I would like you to break down the breaking news for me.

PAMELA BROWN, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Absolutely. Well, once again, Ashleigh, the Supreme Court saved the Affordable Care Act, essentially. Remember a few years ago they upheld the constitutionality. Chief Justice Roberts offering that opinion. And once again he is stepping in, taking the lead here with saying that the four words, "established by the state," that does not mean that that only applies to residents and states with state-run exchanges. It applies to all the residents across the United States, even in those states with federally run exchanges.

This is a huge victory for the Obama administration, who almost saw four words in the law, "established by the state," basically throw his signature achievement into chaos. This is what Chief Justice Roberts said in his opinion. He says, "while the meaning of the phrase, an exchange established by the state, under the act may seem plain, when reviewed in isolation, such a reading turns out to be untenable and lies as a statute as a whole." So he is saying, Ashleigh, that if you look at the law as a whole, it's very clear that the intent is for everyone to receive those subsidies.

Let me tell you why this is so important. This is a key provision in the Affordable Care Act. The government has been saying that if millions of Americans lose their subsidies, there would be chaos. And, in fact, Chief Justice Roberts talks about that in the opinion, saying it would lead to a death spiral. People would lose their health insurance because they couldn't afford it and premiums would skyrocket.

But we should mention that Justice Scalia had a fiery dissent today. He was sitting right next to Chief Justice Roberts and he said that basically the judges did an interpretive somersault to reach this conclusion and that if the court rewrites a law to make tax credits available everywhere, he said, we should start calling this law SCOTUS-care. There was a chuckle in the courtroom and certainly a moment of levity, but it was very dramatic inside that courtroom today.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Yes, things look nice and quiet behind you but I can tell in front of you there's a cacophony of voices. And not to suggest that the people who are on the steps of the Supreme Court are a microcosm for America, but when it's that intense out there, you know a nerve is struck. Can you just give me a feel for what people are saying, how it's being received, at least on the stairs?

BROWN: Well, as soon as the ruling came out, there was a loud applause, a lot of celebrating. You can hear me right now, they're talking about the ruling, "we stand with ACA. ACA is here to stay." So a very vociferous, loud crowd, because this is a very big deal, Ashleigh. Again, half the justices come out in favor of the challengers who said that those millions of people shouldn't receive subsidies. This could have gutted the Affordable Care Act. So, a big victory for the Obama administration with today's ruling.

Ashleigh.

BANFIELD: Stand by, if you will. I know it's getting loud out there.

Jeffrey Toobin, to the quiet confines and the thoughtful situation you're in right now, because I know you were looking at this very, very carefully. Did you expect 6-3. Did you expect to see the upholding of the law by Chief Justice Roberts along with Justice Kennedy? [12:05:00] JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: I did think the

law would survive. I do think 6-3 is somewhat of a surprise. Anthony Kennedy had been a dissenter when Chief Justice Roberts upheld the constitutionality of the law three years ago. So the fact that the Obama administration got Kennedy's vote I think was significant - was a significant surprise to me.

What's a little peculiar about this decision, as we view it in sort of world historical terms, is that it's really just a status quo opinion. It does not have implications beyond the Affordable Care Act. This is not a constitutional opinion. The Constitution has nothing to do with this case. This is simply an interpretation of the law itself, and it says that the way the Obama administration has been interpreting the law is correct. So this is really about the Obama administration dodging a bullet, not getting something it doesn't already have.

BANFIELD: You know, I - I - it's always fascinating when you see something so simple, just being so dissected. Four simple words, you know, "established by the state." I wanted to ask you, was this an exercise in looking at the spirit of this language or of this law, as opposed to the sin tax of this language of this law, or where were the politics involved with those who upheld it?

TOOBIN: Well, I think context - I think that is a - that is a real way of looking at it because the argument that Justice Scalia makes is, it's very simple, "established by the state" means established by the state. That is, the federal subsidies can only go to the exchanges, the marketplaces that are established by the state, not one by the federal government.

But there is a - also a longstanding principle of interpretation in the Supreme Court which says, we don't view every word in isolation. We look at context. We look at the purpose of the law. We look at what Congress was trying to do. And that's what John Roberts' opinion is all about. And he said, look, you know, there is nothing in the law, except those four words, that suggests federal - the subsidies should not go to federal - the federal exchanges.

And it's worth noting that during the long and tortured debate over the Affordable Care Act, not one member of Congress suggested that the subsidies would only go to the state exchanges. So this was a clever lawyer's analysis of the statute after the fact, and they raised this case. But, John Robert's opinion is really a very traditional kind of statutory interpretation where he said, look, you know, the only way this law makes sense is if the subsidies are available in all 50 states, and that's what the ruling is today.

BANFIELD: And he was not shy in giving a dig to Congress, to perhaps get some proofreaders, especially when legislation is this significant.

Jeff, if you can stand by, I've got a lot of other questions I have for you, especially with regard to some of the dissenting opinion. It is rich. You're going to love it. It's some of Scalia's best. And so we're going to dig into that in a moment, too. And then also whether you see Obamacare as a major success or destined

for failure. Today's Supreme Court ruling secures the law's place in history, forever tied to its namesake's legacy. Ahh, legacy. That's an issue, next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:12:19] BANFIELD: Live pictures of the Supreme Court of the United States. And if you squint down on the bottom, you can see a lot of people at the steps of those hallowed halls. All of this in the wake of a mighty ruling from the nine justices, a 6-3 ruling upholding Obamacare as the law of the land, round two effectively keeping that law as is. Perhaps not a surprise to some court watchers, but a big surprise considering it wasn't 5-4, it was 6-3. We're going to talk a lot more about all of that in a moment.

But I want to talk specifically about the subsidies. Those subsidies that more than 6 million Americans rely on to buy health insurance that they might never before have had. This morning, the court ruled that those subsidies are legal, regardless of whether policies are bought on a state exchange or a federal exchange, because there was a sticky wicket in the language and the justices said the spirit was there, the language is OK.

Joining us with reaction from Capitol Hill is Dana Bash. And also joining us is Michelle Kosinski, who's live with reaction also from the White House.

Dana Bash, I want to begin with you, because not everybody is thrilled about this. There are many calls for round three, whatever round three might look like, but basically break down what you're hearing around you.

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: That's right. I mean Republicans are pretty much here on Capitol Hill to the campaign trail are saying the same thing, that they're disappointed in this decision, that they are going to keep pushing ahead to try to fix this legislatively, but also, of course, looking ahead to the reality that they simply don't have the votes on Capitol Hill to do that. They've approved that with umpteen votes, particularly in the Republican-led House over the past several years. They're going to need to do it with a Republican president. So that's very much where their focus is.

You know, but I have to tell you, Ashleigh, that kind of despite that Republican bravado about the fact that we need to do this and this is proof that we need to move ahead politically, is a sigh of relief behind closed doors, here on Capitol Hill especially, because even though they were working very hard, Paul Ryan in particular, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, had actual legislative text ready to go for a way to try to fix it, to try to patch the idea of all of these people, as you mentioned, 6.5 million people would have lost subsidies and effectively lost health care. They - the Republicans here on Capitol Hill were ready for a big fight in the Republican Party because there are a lot of purists who would have said, why are you even doing that? Why are you even extending a tax credit for six months? We need to just let this thing unfold. So they don't have to have this fight right now on the Republican side. They can look ahead politically to the next election of 2016.

[12:15:05] BANFIELD: I'm going to trump you with the umpteen stat and I'm going to make it an umpteenth stat because as the president just mentioned, it's been challenged legislatively more than 50 times, 50 times. So that's been a real tough row to hoe.

Stand by, Dana, if you will. I want to go straight to the White House for Michelle Kosinski standing by.

I was watching what was going on in the Rose Garden and I was always looking, Michelle, for that moment where the football spiked audibly.

MICHELLE KOSINSKI, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes.

BANFIELD: I'm not sure if it was a soft spike or if it wasn't a soft spike and I think everyone will see it differently.

KOSINSKI: Yes.

BANFIELD: But how are they seeing it there?

KOSINSKI: Yes, that's a good description. I think really the way the president started this out, he spoke directly to legacy, saying this was five years ago we started this after a century of trying, a year of bipartisan debate. I think right there, you know, the fact that this was a victory for the White House, that's his victory lap.

Also, speaking to legacy when he said, you know, some day our grandchildren will say to us, was there really a time when the government discriminated against people who had pre-existing conditions and they couldn't get insurance? And then the president rounded this out, touting all of the virtues of Obamacare, as we've seen them doing over the last several months as numbers have been coming out. But that's the way the president sort of, you know, spiked that football, as you put it.

But when he spoke about victory, he wanted to frame it again in terms of the middle class saying, you know, when he did use the word "victory," he said this is a victory for hard-working Americans, saying that this is a great day for America. And, you know, I'll say for all of the confidence posing the White House has done ahead of this momentous decision, I mean saying that this should be an easy decision, and saying this shouldn't have even been taken up. The sense of relief and joy among the administration officials was palpable today. I mean they were boisterous walking in. They were beaming in the front row. So, there was definitely some relief there, telling you this wasn't a cut and dry decision in their minds.

Back to you.

BANFIELD: All right, Michelle Kosinski reporting live for us from the White House. Thank you for that.

You know, it's often say that legacies, as Michelle was just reporting, are fomented years after a president leaves office. All the times he takes to those podiums to make announcements of what he's achieved, you can bet your bottom dollar Obamacare is going to be a big peg in the foundation of his man's legacy. But might other legacies be affected by this? We're going to explore that in a moment.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[12:21:00] BANFIELD: You heard President Obama say the Affordable Health Care Act is here to stay, but he admits there are challenges still to be overcome. And, of course, history will judge the law's true costs and its benefits. And that brings me to our senior Washington correspondent, Jeff Zeleny, and chief national correspondent John King.

So, you know, we talked a little bit about legacy. We talked a little bit about when it actually sets in and the times that you feel like you're in the midst of it setting in.

John, I'll get to you first, if I can. When we hear the president say, "it is here to say," there are many other voices out there say, oh, no, it's not, not so fast.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Not so fast they say, Ashleigh, but they haven't won yet, and that's the president's point. This was litigated in one presidential election. He beat Mitt Romney, who said, I will repeal Obamacare. It's been litigated twice now before the Supreme Court. And as Jeff Toobin noted earlier, the two biggest, significant legal challenges to Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, have now been upheld by the Supreme Court, by a chief justice appointed by George W. Bush, a Republican president.

So, yes, we are going to litigate this one more time in a presidential election. And Hillary Clinton says keep it and approve it. Republicans say, repeal and replace. If the Republicans win the White House and keep their congressional majorities, there's no questions they will propose significant changes to the law.

The interesting part politically, Ashleigh, is, look, the Republicans know they can't gut it, they can't just repeal it, because there are millions of people who have those subsidies. There are many more who allow their recent college graduate to stay on their health care plan. There are many others who have a pre-existing condition who can now get health insurance when they couldn't and the Republicans know politically it would be a disaster to cut those chords.

The challenge for Republicans is, they have to say repeal to keep their base happy. That may scare some of those people because it sounds like take away for people who have things they like. The challenge for Republicans now is, can a - will a candidate stand up and say, we're going to amend it. We're going to significantly change it and drop the repeal language. That would alienate the base. It might help them more in the middle. But we've had two court decisions and one presidential election. Now we'll have one more.

BANFIELD: So, Jeff, weigh in on the words that we're hearing from the likes of the 2016 candidates. Marco Rubio saying, I remain committed to repealing this bad law, replacing it with my consumer centered plan. Jeb Bush saying, but this decision is not the end to the fight against Obamacare. Effectively, would Republicans have to control all three bodies, the House, the Senate, the White House, and that might be the only way to do what all of these candidates say they insist they're going to do?

JEFF ZELENY, CNN SENIOR WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT: Sure. No question about it. I mean Republicans are going to use this as part of their argument to win back the White House, as well as hold their majorities in the Senate and the House. But this is a complicated argument for them, as John just said. Now you are to the point of taking things away from people. And a year from now, as we head into the general election phase of the campaign, you'd be taking even more things away from people. People are gradually becoming used to the subsidies and the benefits that they've been getting from this law.

So it is a difficult path for Republicans here. Yes, in the primary fight, no question about it, this has to be a central argument for every Republican running, you know, repeal and replace. But we are going to hear less repeal and more replace as we head into the general election phase of this campaign. And we still don't know yet how central Republicans are going to make this to their argument.

I can tell you one thing, Ashleigh, Hillary Clinton is going to make this a central, central part of her campaign argument. If she happens to become the Democratic nominee, she is going to say, you elect me, I will keep Obamacare. This makes the Supreme Court so important, all the justices who are on the court, of course. And so ironically, John Roberts, the chief justice here, who has helped cement President Obama's legacy, Senator Barack Obama, a young senator from Illinois, voted against him in his confirmation hearing. So that is, you know, one of the ironies here today that John Roberts has helped cement a key piece of this president's legacy.

BANFIELD: Often wonders how many times he's shaken his head quietly in the hallowed halls of the White House. Jeff Zeleny, John King, thank you both. Appreciate your time and your insight.

[12:25:05] Up next, not everyone in Washington is celebrating today's Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare, not by a long stretch. I'm going to talk to a congressman who has been leading the charge to repeal it. I want to know what he plans next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANNOUNCER: This is CNN breaking news.

BANFIELD: Our breaking news, the Supreme Court today ruling in favor of a vital piece of the Affordable Care Act. And it will impact generations to come. In a 6-3 decision, yes, 6-3, not 5-4, this morning the court said Obamacare premium subsidies are legal. Doesn't matter if you bought your coverage on a state exchange or on the much more numerous federal exchange, they're both OK and they will stay.

I want to bring in Alabama Congressman Bradley Byrne. He joins me now live from Capitol Hill. He's put his name on a bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act in its entirety and says this battle is not over.

Congressman, thanks so much for taking the time to be with us.

I have to ask you, when I'm looking at the statistics and I have no reason to believe that the government is fudging them, 16.4 million people have gained health insurance since the Affordable Care Act became law five years ago. More people have insurance now than since we even began recording these numbers. Rates are down. Pre-existing conditions are no longer a problem.

[12:30:04]