by Ellery Weil
Nicholas Bagley argues at The Incidental Economist that the method of statutory interpretation used by the majority in Halbig v. Burwell “leads to a result so manifestly at odds with what Congress actually meant.”
In Politico, Abbe Gluck looks at Halbig and how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit “bent over backwards” to interpret the statute in a way that “no one who followed the enactment of the Affordable Care Act actually thinks Congress intended.”
Amanda Hess of Slate questions whether Johns Hopkins’ recent settlement in a class-action suit against an abusive gynecologist is trying to provide a quick-fix legal and financial solution in a case where there are far larger issues of class bias and institutional disenfranchisement at play.
Orin Kerr mentions at The Volokh Conspiracy that the Supreme Court has reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision on Ryan v. Wood, the Arizona lethal injection case.