Benefits Think The Supreme Court’s trail of breadcrumbs: A legal perspective on California v. Texas

Published 6 Min Read

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments for two similar cases, and in both cases parties challenged the doctrine of Chevron deference, in which federal courts defer to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes.

Picture yourself in a conversation with a precocious 8-year old girl wearing big red plastic framed glasses when you ask her what she wants to be when she grows up. Looking up at you with complete earnestness she says “a Supreme Court Justice. That’s right folks, not a waitress, a ballerina, a doctor, or even President of the United States, but a Supreme Court Justice. If you haven’t guessed it yet, that 8-year old was me. While I’d like to think that I’ve gotten a lot less awkward over the years, my passion for all things the Supreme Court has never waned. I have of course shifted career goals slightly and I know that Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Employee Benefits Security Administration doesn’t have the same ring to it.

In any event, November 10, 2020 was game day for me. Despite the election, my eyes have been laser focused for months on California v. Texas, the most recent challenge to the Affordable Care Act. In this case, the State of Texas, joined by the Trump Administration, 17 other states and two individual plaintiffs are contending that the ACA’s individual mandate is unconstitutional and that as a result the entire ACA should be invalidated.

Jennifer Berman
CEO

Jennifer Berman is CEO of MZQ Consulting.


For reprint and licensing requests for this article, click here.


More From Employee Benefit News

Sign Up Form

Login Modal Form