He's A Complicated Man | Eastern NC Now

    Publisher's note: The author of this post is Jon Guze, who is the Director of Legal Studies for the John Locke Foundation.

    As readers are no doubt well aware, two weeks ago Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion in King v. Burwell. He held that, in the context of the Affordable Care Act, the phrase, "An Exchange established by the State," should be interpreted to mean, "An Exchange established by the State or by the Federal Government."

    While some have complained that the King v. Burwell decision is "unprincipled,"constitutional law expert John O. McGinnis argues that:


    While this explanation for the Chief Justice's reasoning in King v. Burwell seems plausible enough, it is hard to reconcile with his dissent last week in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

    In 2000 a successful ballot initiative took redistricting power away from the Arizona Legislature and gave it to the AIRC. The legislature responded by raising a Constitutional objection based on Article I, Section 4 (the "Elections Clause") which states:


    Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg upheld the AIRC's redistricting power. She noted that:


    And she held that, in the context of the Elections Clause, the phrase, "The Legislature," should be interpreted to mean, "Lawmaking by the people."

    Surprisingly — given his supposed commitment to the principle that the overriding purpose of legislation should be given greater weight than its text — Chief Justice Roberts rejected this reasoning. He complained that the majority's opinion was "based largely on its understanding of the 'history and purpose' of the Elections Clause [and] lacks any basis in the text of the Constitution or any other relevant legal source." In his dissent, he provides a detailed analysis of the Constitutional text and the relevant case law to support his conclusion that:


    It's certainly a persuasive argument; why didn't he use it in King v. Burwell? He could have said: