An unexpected side-effect of the KING v. BURWELL decision, upholding the subsidy component of the Obamacare statutory scheme, may be that it weakens Chevron deference . I mentioned this point (too) briefly in my own discussion of King v. Burwell in this blog. I'll quote myself here: The court could have used Chevron reasoning, after all - it could simply have said, "in such matters of statutory construction, we defer to the administrative expertise of the relevant executive officials." That would have left the scheme in place, but would have left it subject to being overturned if the Republicans win the next election and the partisan loyalties of the relevant administration officials change. But it didn't. What I should have said there was that the majority opinion, by Justice Roberts, actually went further than simple non-reliance on Chevron . the language of the opinion seems to limit the scope of Chevron. "The tax credits are among the Act's ...
