# Jacqueline Halbig v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · July 22, 2014 · 758 F.3d 390

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9800553

## Case

- **Full name:** Jacqueline HALBIG, Et Al., Appellants v. Sylvia Mathews BURWELL, in Her Official Capacity as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** July 22, 2014
- **Citations:** 758 F.3d 390; 411 U.S. App. D.C. 199; 114 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5225; 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13880; 2014 WL 3579745
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Randolph
- **Judges:** Edwards, Griffith, Randolph
- **Cited by:** 15 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9800553

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- acknowledging that the Secretary establishes Federal Exchanges under Section 18031

## Opinion text

RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
A Supreme Court tax decision, and a tax decision of this court, flatly reject the position the government takes in this case.
As Judge Griffith’s majority opinion— which I fully join — demonstrates, an Exchange established by the federal government cannot possibly be “an Exchange established by the State.” To hold otherwise would be to engage in distortion, not interpretation. Only further legislation could accomplish the expansion the government seeks.
In the meantime, Justice Brandéis’ opinion for the Supreme Court in Iselin v. United States is controlling: “What the government asks is not a construction of a statute, but, in effect, an enlargement of it by the court, so that what was omitted, presumably by inadvertence, may be included within its scope. To supply omissions transcends the judicial function.” 270 U.S. 245, 251 , 46 S.Ct. 248 , 70 L.Ed. 566 (1926). We held the same in National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. United States, 431 F.3d 374, 378 (D.C.Cir.2005), citing not only Iselin but also Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 538 , 124 S.Ct. 1023 , 157 L.Ed.2d 1024 (2004), which reaffirmed Iselin’s “longstanding” interpretative principle.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9800553. Public record. Not legal advice.