Which is why the plaintiffs might win.
Background here (via here): the short version is that the Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments on King v. Burwell (which is effectively the same as Halbig v. Burwell). For those who don’t remember, the underlying issue is whether Obamacare actually gives the President the ability to provide subsidies to people who use state-sponsored Obamacare exchanges AND the federally-provided one, or whether the law only permits subsidies for users of the state exchanges. The administration’s defenders, apologists, and sycophants have been arguing that it’s all due to a typo or a technicality… and in the face of some compelling counter-arguments (and not a few amused head-shakes), including some inadvertent coutner-arguments from those who helped create the legislation in the first place.
Anyway, regarding the actual scope of the case; this is a very important point that was made by Philip Klein. Assuming the court found for plaintiffs:
…Instead, [the Supreme Court would] merely be ruling that the administration wasn’t following Obamacare as written.
The case now before the court is not making a constitutional claim that Congress doesn’t have the power to pass federal exchange subsidies, but merely that the statute they wrote did not authorize such subsidies
…And the remedy for that claim is very simple. If it truly was the intent of Congress to give the administration the power to provide Obamacare subsidies even in states that did not set up a healthcare exchange, then the Court can simply send the matter back to Congress and have them add whatever authorizations Congress desires to the law. There! Problem solved.