Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
King V. Burwell: What Does It Portend For Chevron’S Domain?, Leandra Lederman, Joseph C. Dugan
King V. Burwell: What Does It Portend For Chevron’S Domain?, Leandra Lederman, Joseph C. Dugan
Pepperdine Law Review
This short Essay considers what the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015), suggests about the future of Chevron deference. It first compares the Court’s approach in King with its approach in two other “extraordinary” nondeference cases, FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. and Gonzales v. Oregon. It next situates King in a broader context of developments in the Court’s Chevron jurisprudence. The Essay concludes that, while King may simply be a sui generis case involving an important social program, it may also signal a fading appetite for deference among the Justices. - …
The (Perhaps) Unintended Consequences Of King V. Burwell, Kristin E. Hickman
The (Perhaps) Unintended Consequences Of King V. Burwell, Kristin E. Hickman
Pepperdine Law Review
The Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell surprised many people, not because of its outcome but because, even as the Court ultimately agreed with the IRS’s interpretation of the statute, the Court expressly denied the IRS Chevron deference. As regards that result, this Essay makes three points. First, the Chevron discussion in King was not incidental, but the IRS and taxes were not foremost on the Court’s mind. Rather, King reflects a careful effort by Chief Justice Roberts to accomplish, through alternative framing, a broader curtailment of Chevron’s scope that he advocated unsuccessfully two terms earlier in City of …
King V. Burwell: Where Were The Tax Professors?, Andy S. Grewal
King V. Burwell: Where Were The Tax Professors?, Andy S. Grewal
Pepperdine Law Review
King v. Burwell drew unusually wide attention for a tax case. Members of the public, the mainstream media, health care professionals, Washington think tanks, and constitutional, administrative, and health law professors, to name a few groups, all debated the merits of the challengers’ arguments. Everyone, it seems, had something to say about the case — except tax professors. This contribution to Pepperdine Law Review’s Tax Law Symposium explores three potential reasons for the tax professoriate’s reticence. It concludes that none of those reasons withstand scrutiny, and going forward, tax professors should play a more active role in cases like this.
Is The Chief Justice A Tax Lawyer?, Stephanie Hoffer, Christopher J. Walker
Is The Chief Justice A Tax Lawyer?, Stephanie Hoffer, Christopher J. Walker
Pepperdine Law Review
In our contribution to this symposium on King v. Burwell, we explore two aspects of the Chief Justice’s opinion where it is hard to ignore the fingerprints of a tax lawyer. First, in the Chief’s approach to statutory interpretation one sees a tax lawyer as interpreter with an approach that tracks tax law’s substance-over-form doctrine. Second, as to King’s sweeping administrative law holding, the Chief crafts a new major questions doctrine that could significantly cut back on federal agency lawmaking authority. Yet he seems to develop this doctrine against the backdrop of tax exceptionalism, and thus this development may have …
The Rise And Fall Of Chevron In Tax: From The Early Days To King And Beyond, Steve R. Johnson
The Rise And Fall Of Chevron In Tax: From The Early Days To King And Beyond, Steve R. Johnson
Pepperdine Law Review
Chevron is receding in tax, not because of any resurgence of tax exceptionalism but because it is receding everywhere. The case will continue to be cited by courts and masticated by commentators, but the unresolved – indeed worsening — conceptual, definitional, and practical incongruities of its doctrine rob it of operational force. King, which the Supreme Court conspicuously chose to resolve without “help” from Chevron, is another mile-marker on Chevron’s downward road. This article maps that road.
King V. Burwell And Tax Court Review Of Regulations, Ellen P. Aprill
King V. Burwell And Tax Court Review Of Regulations, Ellen P. Aprill
Pepperdine Law Review
In King v. Burwell, the Supreme Court did not rely on Chevron to hold valid tax regulations allowing tax credits for taxpayers who enroll in an insurance plan through a federal rather than a state exchange. It instead concluded, relying in good measure on Brown and Williamson, that Congress had not delegated the question at issue to the IRS. It thus introduced a so-called Chevron Step 0. This essay reviews the Tax Court’s use of Chevron and Brown & Williamson to conclude that the Tax Court may well make use of King v. Burwell to review and reject tax regulations …
Foreword—King V. Burwell Symposium: Comments On The Commentaries (And On Some Elephants In The Room), David Gamage
Foreword—King V. Burwell Symposium: Comments On The Commentaries (And On Some Elephants In The Room), David Gamage
Pepperdine Law Review
As an introduction to the Symposium, this invited response essay reviews the pieces submitted for the Pepperdine Law Review symposium on the King v. Burwell case. The thrust of this essay’s response commentary is to praise the submitted essays for their excellence and insightfulness, but to suggest that the submitted essays nonetheless might benefit from focusing more on the role of the political mobilization that resulted in the King v. Burwell dispute. Ultimately, this essay suggests that what may have motivated the Supreme Court to develop and apply its new “deep economic and political significance” test in this this case …
King V. Burwell: The Supreme Court's Missed Opportunity To Cure What Ails Chevron, Vanessa L. Johnson, Marisa Finley, J. James Rohack
King V. Burwell: The Supreme Court's Missed Opportunity To Cure What Ails Chevron, Vanessa L. Johnson, Marisa Finley, J. James Rohack
Journal of Legislation
The article outlines the construct of the ACA’s premium assistance tax credits, explores the legal controversies surrounding these subsidies, uses the tax subsidies cases to demonstrate the flaws in the Chevron framework, and argues that the Supreme Court should have framed its King v. Burwell analysis in a way that would have cured, rather than ignored, the ails of Chevron.