That conclusion cannot withstand serious scrutiny and should not be followed here. The district court agreed that, “[o]n its face, the plain language of 26 U.S.C. § 36B(b)-(c) . .

It is doubtful that the House would have paid such close attention to the amount of federal premium tax credits, while at the same time silently acceding to legislation that would have foreclosed federal premium tax credits entirely in some states. Second, although the language that became 26 U.S.C. § 36B was developed in the Senate Finance Committee, that Committee did not at any time express any intent to condition the availability of federal premium tax credits on the existence of a state-operated Exchange. To the contrary, to the extent that the issue arose at all, the Finance Committee expressed its understanding that the federally-facilitated Exchange would be the same entity as the state-operated Exchange.

See OPM v. Richmond, 496 U.S. 414, 424 (1990) (holding that “the straightforward and explicit command of the Appropriations Clause” barred payment of a claim for federal benefits not authorized by the relevant substantive statute). The claim in King v. Burwell, for example, was that the Treasury Department’s expenditures for premium tax credits in States with Exchanges operated by the federal government were contrary to the unambiguous text of 26 U.S.C. § 36B. See 135 S. Ct. at 2488-89.

I, § 9, cl. 7 ...........................................................................................................1, 6 Statutes & Federal Rules 31 U.S.C. § 1324 ..............................................................................................................3, 4, 5, 6, 7 42 U.S.C. § 18023 ............................................................................................................................6 ACA § 1401 (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 36B) .................................................................................5, 6 ACA § 1402 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 18071) ..............................................................................5, 6 Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-46, 127 Stat.

And if the government believes coverage on the government exchanges is too expensive, it is of course entirely free to subsidize those policies for any such employee, as it already does for employees whose employer-provided coverage is considered unaffordable or considered inadequate. See 26 U.S.C. § 36B(c)(2)(C)(i)-(ii) (employee not ineligible for tax credit where “the employee’s required contribution [to an employer plan] exceeds 9.5 percent of the applicable taxpayer's household income” or the employer plan fails “minimum value” by covering “less than 60 percent” of the costs of covered benefits); see also 42 U.S.C. § 18071(f)(2) (applying same metric to cost-sharing subsidies).

The plain text of the Affordable Care Act makes subsidies available only to individuals who enroll in insurance plans “through an Exchange established by the State under [§] 1311 of the [Act].” 26 U.S.C. § 36B(b)(2)(A). The IRS, however, has authorized federal premium-assistance subsidies to individuals who enroll in insurance plans through a federal exchange and, therefore, do not qualify under the statute.

Id. § 1401(a) (adding 26 U.S.C. § 36B(c)(2)(C)(i), (ii)).To the extent the claim is that the State must offer coverage that includes the Essential Health Benefits package defined in § 1302, that is not the case.