It's hard to keep up with the lawsuits being filed.
While the author of the article does give his own interpretation, most of the article quotes court written statements. I admit, I had to read the legalese twice to grasp what the court was saying.
As we all know there is a "tax" assessed for employers failing to meet the mandates of the ACA. There is also a "tax" for individuals. You can't go to the court to get relief from the tax ... but these plaintiffs are in court contending that the credits for individuals (the subsidies that will be offered to individuals in the state exchanges) are not legal.
There is also the question of whether suits can be heard before an plaintiff actually has been "damaged" by the law. That position also seems to lean in favor of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiff states (the state of OK):. The relief they seek is to block the illegal tax credits, without which no penalty can be assessed. But even if we pretend (as the government does) that they are trying to block the collection of a tax, the federal district courts for the Eastern District of Oklahoma (Pruitt) and the District of Columbia (Halbig) may now rely on the Fourth Circuitís opinion in Liberty to reject the argument that the AIA applies to the employer mandate.
Whether one supports the ACA or not, one may have to admit that the legal complexities of the law are as convoluted as the law itself.The delay is at least an implicit admission by the federal government that the reporting requirements and other large employer mandate requirements are in fact injuring large employers such as the State.