Overnight Healthcare: Court split on ObamaCare challenge

The Supreme Court appeared deeply divided Wednesday on whether to curtail tax subsidies under ObamaCare, with Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy providing few clues about how they might rule. Roberts, who cast the decisive vote in favor of ObamaCare in 2012, was unusually quiet during the oral arguments, prompting legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin to declare his views of the case "almost entirely a mystery." Supporters of ObamaCare had viewed Roberts as their best hope for winningKing v. Burwell, which threatens to strip ObamaCare subsidies from millions of people who live in states served by the federal insurance exchange, HealthCare.gov. With Roberts keeping his cards close, much of the attention Wednesday centered on Kennedy, a perennial swing vote who told the law's challengers he saw a "serious constitutional problem" with their argument. Kennedy had not been seen as a gettable vote for the administration, given that he voted to strike down the healthcare law in its entirety in 2012. But he appeared to gravitate toward an idea first raised by liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor: namely, that a literal reading of the law advocated by the challengers would amount to a "coercive" ultimatum for the states. QUICK TAKES FROM THE DEBATE: 1. The court may not immediately eliminate subsidies: Conservative justice Samuel Alito suggested that the court could give states a few extra months to comply before taking away the subsidies, possibly waiting until the end of tax season. 2. Conservatives believe Congress wants to help: Another ObamaCare foe, Justice Antonin Scalia, believes that the GOP will figure out a way to manage the fallout from the case. "If the consequences are as disastrous as you say, then yes, I think this Congress will act," Scalia told the administration's attorney. 3. Obama administration isn't blaming anything on a 'drafting error': Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. defended the legislative process that led to the four words at the center of the case – "established by a state." While some supporters have chalked up the issue to a drafting error, Verrilli maintained that the language was "not the product of some last­ minute deal." 4. The administration won't pick fight over plaintiff's legal standing: Liberal justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg immediately set the administration up for an attack on the plaintiffs' standing to bring the lawsuit on Wednesday, but Verrilli took didn't take the bait. He said he doesn't have evidence to move forward with the argument, despite recent questions raised in the media that have excited ObamaCare supporters. BOTH SIDES THINK THEY'LL WIN: Lawmakers from both parties believe things are swinging in their favor. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who sat in for the arguments, accused Republicans of trying to win in court what they couldn't win in Congress. "With this case, Republicans intend to take affordable health coverage away from millions of hard working Americans – hoping to achieve through the courts what they cannot do even with majorities in both houses of Congress," she said in a statement. Republicans seized the spotlight on ObamaCare to pitch their party's plans to replace the subsidies. "The law is clear -- and the Supreme Court should order the IRS to enforce the law as it is written. If it does, we will be ready to act," said Reps. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Fred Upton (R-Mich.), and John Kline (R-Minn.), who all attended the arguments. Read more here. WHITE HOUSE HAPPY WITH SOLICITOR GENERAL: The White House on Wednesday said it is "quite pleased" with the administration's defense of ObamaCare at the Supreme Court. "I can say generally that the administration was quite pleased with the performance of the solicitor general in making a strong case to the court about the constitutionality of the law and the clear reading that we believe is there," Earnest said. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. previously came under fire for his 2012 arguments, with some accusing him of potentially losing the case for the administration with a halting performance. Read more here. Thursday's schedule Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) will partner with Planned Parenthood to unveil a women's health bill. The CATO Institute will discuss the King v. Burwell arguments with people who have influenced the case including Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt. State by state Florida Gov. Rick Scott: Obama can't be silent on healthcare's future Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker's budget cuts Medicaid to close budget gap Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker says he would sign ban on abortions after 20 weeks What we're reading Five key takeaways from the arguments in King v. Burwell The most important moment from today's ObamaCare arguments Even with an unfavorable court ruling, much of Obamacare would live on What you might have missed from The Hill Toobin: No 'trainwrecks' at Supreme Court Poll: Most back fix if Court strikes subsidies McConnell, Reid weigh in on ObamaCare case How the ObamaCare challenge evolved Please send tips and comments to Sarah Ferris, sferris@thehill.com, and Peter Sullivan, psullivan@thehill.com. Follow on Twitter: @thehill, @sarahnferris, @PeterSullivan4