Transcript of Oral Argument Before the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell (PDF)
97 pages. "[Justice Kennedy to attorney for petitioners]: Let me say that from the standpoint of the dynamics of Federalism, it does seem to me that there is something very powerful to the point that if your argument is accepted, the States are being told either create your own Exchange, or we'll send your insurance market into a death spiral.... The cost of insurance will be sky-high, but this is not coercion. It seems to me that under your argument, perhaps you will prevail in the plain words of the statute, there's a serious constitutional problem if we adopt your argument.... [Justice Kagan to attorney for petitioners]: But we are interpreting a statute generally to make it make sense as a whole, right? We look at the whole text. We don't look at four words. We look at the whole text, the particular context, the more general context, try to make everything harmonious with everything else. I think you said, even at the very beginning of this argument ... that, of course, context matters and context might make all the difference with respect to what those five words mean. And I think what we're suggesting is that, if you look at the entire text, it's pretty clear that you oughtn't to treat those five words in the way you are.... [Justice Scalia to Solicitor General Verrilli]: This is not the most elegantly drafted statute. It was ... pushed through on expedited procedures and didn't have the kind of consideration by a conference committee, for example, that statutes usually do. What would be so surprising if among its other imperfections, there is the imperfection that what the States have to do is not obvious enough? It doesn't strike me as inconceivable.... There were senators, were there not, who were opposed to having the Federal government run the whole thing, because they thought that would lead to a single-payer system ... And the explanation for this provision is it prevents the Federalization of the entire thing." [King v. Burwell, No. 14-1158 (4th Cir. July 22, 2014; cert. pet. granted Nov. 7, 2014)] (Supreme Court of the United States)