{"id":6137,"date":"2015-06-26T12:06:00","date_gmt":"2015-06-26T12:06:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/sccblog\/?p=6137"},"modified":"2015-10-14T12:54:16","modified_gmt":"2015-10-14T07:24:16","slug":"obamacare-subsidies-upheld","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/","title":{"rendered":"Obamacare subsidies upheld"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of United States<\/span><\/b>– Giving a landmark judgment, the Court by a majority of 6:3 sealed the fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 124 Stat. 119 by upholding that the Act widely known as Obamacare, did not restrict the subsidies to States that establish their own online healthcare exchanges but extends them to States that have a Federal Exchange also. The issue in the present case was whether the Act\u2019s interlocking reforms apply equally in each State no matter who establishes the State\u2019s Exchange or whether the tax credits are available in States that have a Federal Exchange.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act adopts a series of interlocking reforms designed to expand coverage in the individual health insurance market. First, the Act bars insurers from taking a person\u2019s health into account when deciding whether to sell health insurance or how much to charge. Second, the Act generally requires each person to maintain insurance coverage or make a payment to the Internal Revenue Service. And third, the Act gives tax credits to certain people to make insurance more affordable. In addition to those reforms, the Act requires the creation of an \u201cExchange\u201d in each State basically, a marketplace that allows people to compare and purchase insurance plans. The Act gives each State the opportunity to establish its own Exchange, but provides that the Federal Government will establish the Exchange if the State does not. Also, the Act provides that tax credits \u201cshall be allowed\u201d for any \u201capplicable taxpayer,\u201d 26 U. S.<\/st1:place><\/st1:country-region> C. \u00a736B(a), but only if the taxpayer has enrolled in an insurance plan through \u201can Exchange established by the State under 42 U. S.<\/st1:place><\/st1:country-region> C. \u00a718031,\u201d \u00a7\u00a736B(b)(c).<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

The Court observed while interpreting the phrase \u201can Exchange established by the State under 42 U. S. C. \u00a718031\u201d that oftentimes the meaning or ambiguity of certain words or phrases may only become evident when placed in context, hence the phrase may be limited in its reach to State Exchanges but it could also refer to all Exchanges both State and Federal for purposes of the tax credits. Roberts CJ, giving the opinion of the Court stated that although the petitioner\u2019s arguments about the plain meaning of the statute were \u201cstrong\u201d, the context and structure of the act compel to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase. King v. Burwell<\/i>, 576 U. S.<\/st1:place><\/st1:country-region> ____ (2015), decided on 25.06.2015<\/o:p><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court of United States– Giving a landmark judgment, the Court by a majority of 6:3 sealed the fate of the Patient <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":7321,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-6137","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-foreigncourts"],"yoast_head":"\nObamacare subsidies upheld | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Obamacare subsidies upheld\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court of United States– Giving a landmark judgment, the Court by a majority of 6:3 sealed the fate of the Patient\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2015-06-26T12:06:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-10-14T07:24:16+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/\",\"name\":\"Obamacare subsidies upheld | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2015-06-26T12:06:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-10-14T07:24:16+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Obamacare subsidies upheld\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Obamacare subsidies upheld | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Obamacare subsidies upheld","og_description":"Supreme Court of United States– Giving a landmark judgment, the Court by a majority of 6:3 sealed the fate of the Patient","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2015-06-26T12:06:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-10-14T07:24:16+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/","name":"Obamacare subsidies upheld | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","datePublished":"2015-06-26T12:06:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-10-14T07:24:16+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/06\/26\/obamacare-subsidies-upheld\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Obamacare subsidies upheld"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/scc-blog_Page_9.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":192374,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/02\/26\/individuals-not-reporting-companys-legal-violations-cannot-claim-protection-dodd-frank-reforms-anti-retaliation-provisions\/","url_meta":{"origin":6137,"position":0},"title":"Individuals not reporting a company\u2019s legal violations, cannot claim protection under the Dodd-Frank Reform\u2019s anti-retaliation provisions","author":"Saba","date":"February 26, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United States: While deciding the issue that whether the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, covers the protection of an individual who has not reported a violation of the securities law to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and whether such individual comes\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":355394,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/02\/ph-hc-magistrate-to-inform-mental-health-patient-of-legal-aid\/","url_meta":{"origin":6137,"position":1},"title":"Magistrate has duty to inform individuals with mental ailment of their right to free legal services: Punjab and Haryana HC","author":"Editor","date":"August 2, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court requested Additional Solicitor General of India, to file reply on the point that there is no notification by the Government of India for constitution of Medical Health Review Board under Section 73 of the Mental Health Care Act, 2017 for Union Territory, Chandigarh.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Magistrate to inform mental health patient of legal aid","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Magistrate-to-inform-mental-health-patient-of-legal-aid.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Magistrate-to-inform-mental-health-patient-of-legal-aid.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Magistrate-to-inform-mental-health-patient-of-legal-aid.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/Magistrate-to-inform-mental-health-patient-of-legal-aid.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":232257,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/07\/15\/scotus-validates-promulgation-of-rules-imposing-moral-and-religious-exemptions-on-providing-contraceptive-coverage-to-women-by-their-employers\/","url_meta":{"origin":6137,"position":2},"title":"SCOTUS validates promulgation of Rules imposing moral and religious exemptions on providing contraceptive coverage to women by their employers","author":"Editor","date":"July 15, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Sucheta Sarkar, Editorial Assistant has put this story together","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":272648,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/30\/the-increased-need-to-protect-health-data-privacy-in-a-post-roe-world\/","url_meta":{"origin":6137,"position":3},"title":"The Increased Need to Protect Health Data Privacy in a post- Roe World","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 30, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"by Shantanu Mukherjee\u2020 Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 65","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Protect Health","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-18-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-18-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-18-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-18-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/08\/MicrosoftTeams-image-18-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":267419,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/26\/if-a-person-who-is-deaf-and-legally-blind-seeks-physical-therapy-services-is-denied-the-same-can-emotional-distress-damages-be-recovered-scotus-law-legal-news-legal-update\/","url_meta":{"origin":6137,"position":4},"title":"If a person who is deaf and legally blind seeks physical therapy services is denied the same, Can emotional distress damages be recovered? SCOTUS examines","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 26, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS): In a 6-3 ruling, Court expressed that, Emotional distress damages are not recoverable in a private action to enforce either the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Affordable Care Act, Roberts C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch,\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":196658,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/06\/04\/in-a-narrow-majority-decision-us-supreme-court-affirms-that-there-is-no-right-to-class-actions-under-national-labor-relations-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":6137,"position":5},"title":"In a narrow majority decision, US Supreme Court affirms that there is no right to class actions under National Labor Relations Act","author":"Saba","date":"June 4, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court of the United States: While deliberating on the issue that whether employees should always be permitted to bring their claims in collective actions, no matter what they agreed with their employers, the 9 judge Bench of the Court with a ratio of 5:4, held that the law embodied\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court of The United States","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/01\/supreme_court_of_US.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6137","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6137"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/6137\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7321"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6137"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6137"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6137"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}