Subsidies through Healthcare.gov may be illegal.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's also a potential standing issue.  I doubt that the law is worded so that the fines are directly dependent upon the existence of subsidized insurance in order to be levied.  It would seem far more likely that if there is a defect in the law, the fines and the subsidies are both dependent upon the existence of state-run exchanges, it which case plaintiffs could have standing to challenge being fined, but they would have no standing to challenge the subsidies.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There's also a potential standing issue.  I doubt that the law is worded so that the fines are directly dependent upon the existence of subsidized insurance in order to be levied.  It would seem far more likely that if there is a defect in the law, the fines and the subsidies are both dependent upon the existence of state-run exchanges, it which case plaintiffs could have standing to challenge being fined, but they would have no standing to challenge the subsidies.

It seems that both the fourth circuit and dc circuit didn't find the standing arguments availing, right?

Were they even raised by the defense, tho?  I somehow doubt that this case was taken seriously by the administration.  It seems odd that the fines would be directly triggered by the availability of subsidies, tho I'll admit it's not impossible that would be the case.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Krazey, ACA is far from the first Federal program in which the unincorporated territories are treated differently than the states and DC.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well yes, there is now a circuit split but the 4th circuit one is unlikely to change position whereas there's likely to be an en banc review in the DC circuit. That, in my view, will likely lead to a reversal and no split. Stay tuned.

What's an "en banc review"? A review with more judges than 3?

Yup.  En banc means all the judges of the circuit meet to make a ruling.