BG&A filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court in King v. Burwell, on behalf of the Galen Institute, a non-profit health and tax policy research organization, as well as several state legislators. As with the briefs previously filed on behalf of the Galen Institute in the courts below (see here and here), this brief did not attempt to simply reiterate the arguments already presented by the main parties, but instead offered two more fundamental constitutional doctrines that should inform the court’s analysis. First, the brief argues that the Administration’s attempt to penalize and subsidize States that did not set up their own Obamacare exchanges improperly encroaches upon authority traditionally reserved to the States, something that the Administration cannot without Congress’s clear authorization. Second, the brief argues that the Administration’s position is not entitled to “Chevron deference,” because it pertains to a “major question” of policy and thus the courts cannot presume that Congress implicitly committed the issue to an agency’s unilateral decision.