t appears to change what we know about mann kind. it has five intact teeth, and is more than 2.8 million years old, making it half a million years older than any previously known human remains. all the latest on the website aljazeera.com. night hello, i'm ray suarez. a sharply divided supreme court again heard arguments for and against the structure of president obama's heath care reform law, the affordable care act. what is different this time is the attention on four small words - established by the state. everything is working on how they are interpreted in the context of it 1,000 page war. a ruling against the administration would crack a pillar supporting the law, and drop the health coverage of millions of americans.

we'll get in the courtroom with sam baker who will debate the law and the subsidies at the heart of the case, and our plaintiffs. >> mr king, mr king. >> save you a lot of time. no comment. >> reporter: i can't talk to you for a second who they are will surprise you. obama care back in the dock. it's "inside story". reporters who followed today's oral argument are in wide agreement. this issue divides the nine justices. if the administration has hopes to prevail, it will have to hook a fifth vote, maybe from the chief justice or associate justice. either way the future of

president obama's signature domestic achievement may be hanging by the slender threat of a vote. let's take a look at the health care markets in the state. as of now, the federal government runs the health care exchanges in a total of 34 states. the remaining states manage their own. of the 34, florida receives the highest share of subsidies for those using the affordable care act, and under 65 years of age with 9.4%. nearly 1.5 million, followed by maine and north carolina with 6.1% each. the system of subsidies that make the numbers in obama care work were at issue with king v bernel. the plaintiffs argue that residents of states with insurance exchanges not run by the federal government are allowed subsidies under the language of the law as written. what would a victory mean for the plaintiffs?

>> a study by the robert woods johnson foundation projected the number of uninsured would climb by more than 8 million people. we'll look at the high stakes argument in the high court with sam baker, health care reporter for "national journal." . >> thank you for having me. >> what did michael carr von, the plaintiff's lawyer, say to build his argument. >> he came out strong, aggress i, as is his style. his art focused specifically, narrowly on the text of the few words you mentioned. there is a section in the law that refers to the subsidies flowing through an exchange established by the state. >> and his strongest, primary argument for the court was that's it. even if the change is established by h.h.s. are the same as state-run exchanges in every other practical respect,

they were not established by the state. therefore, the exchanges can be go. >> it's a simple argument. which justices were buying it, which seemed like they weren't. >> it seemed to resonate with justice scalia and another, republic appointees. you can assume that justice clarence thomas is in that sense as well. it didn't get transaction with the traditional liberals. in the center, you had chief justice roberts, who barely said a word in the entire nearly... >> that has a lot of attention that he didn't have much to say. >> yes, coming into this a lot of people thought he was the vote. mostly because of the vote in 2012 to uphold the law. the case is different. he may not have been as reliable

for the government as he was in the 2012 case. and he really did just want to tip his hands. the questions that he did ask were not really on the substance of the statutory interpretation here. they were on peripheral issues. he played his cards, no one knows where he's standing on that. >> then is the moment where it was said there was a serious constitutional problem, we accept your argument. what was he getting at. >> that was an important argument. carr von makes the art that the law said what he -- argument that the law said what he says, and the subsidies can't be made available. to tell it, he's saying that congress intended to set it up that way. it withheld the subsidies so that states would have a strong incentive to set up their own exchanges, because if they didn't.

the insurance markets would spiral out of control. that wouldn't have been a fair deal, that may have been unconstitutional. if you say that's what was intended to do. he expressed in a couple of points concerns about how carr von's view of the law would really affect the balance of state and federal power. that's an issue that is important to him. he has based a lot of jurisprudence on in the past. that was a good sign for the administration. he picked up for the issue. >> who argued for the administration, and what did he have to say. >> that was the solicitor-general. this case was a rematch. one day of the 2012 arguments, don versus michael carr von, and his argument is that you can't look at just these five words when you try to figure out what the text of the law means. he tried to tell the court you don't have to go beyond the

text, look at legislative history or anything like that. you have to read the whole statute. if you read the whole thing, there's one definition of an exchange. all the exchanges are treated the same, practically, whether run by the states or the federal government. he was saying that carron is asking them to split hairs and take too narrow a few by reading these words in isolation. >> did he have to concede in arguments that that phrase was a problem, the 34 exchanges were not established by the state. >> he didn't. it is, because we wouldn't be here without the words. but, no, his art is the text still works for him. he says it's a question of what you consider to be the text. if by the text you mean five words, he might have to consider that. his response is to steer things away, saying no, that's not what

the text is, it's the law. it's fine for the government. >> during the day in court. did practical effect of what this ruling could mean come up in either side's argument. >> it did. it's part in parcel of what was important to justice kennedy. the liberal justices hit the carbon. >> it's not just a practical consideration. what would have millions losing subsidies, insurance markets, and some states becoming unstable much they are not just presented to the court in terms of these are bad things, don't make them happen. the argument to the justices is these are the things that congress is trying to ensure wouldn't happen. they looked at states that adopted some reforms without a system of subsidies, and the law clearly speaks to the experience that those states had, and said happening.

>> the practical considerations come up in terms of trying to convince the justices that the reading of the statute would usher in a reality, that the law avoid. >> from what we know about the nine particular justices, do they thing about those kinds of questions a lot. the affect that their rulings may have, even if they have problems with the language and the law? >> it probably various from justice to justice. it was a reason that a lot of people worry that they might lose kennedy, which seems a possibility. he tends to think about those things. someone like a scalia or a roberts wouldn't be quite as inclined to take those things into account. >> sam baker, "national journal", great to have you with us.

later on "inside story" we'll be joined by lisa stark. a supreme court case has to start with people claimed to be injured. who are the people behind king v byrne well. what she finds might surprise you. stay with us, it's "inside story".

welcome back to "inside story" on al jazeera america, i'm ray suarez. having covered the law signs it was a gleam in the eye of obama health policy advisors, i think i'm on solid grouped when i say the -- ground when i say the people who drafted the bill didn't expect 34 states refusing to set up their changes. whether it was a drafting error, badly wording or meant to be taken out and never was remains

to be explained, but established by the state end up being a dagger at the heart of the affordable care act, if the supreme court decides insurance in the states using the federal healthcare.gov no longer qualify for subsidies, it's a big deal. joining he to assess the future and explain the churches and define death siral. is trevor burris, and christopher right, partner of a law firm. firing an amicus brief supporting the obama administration's position. chris wright, does there exist a principal in law that goes to intent - what i meant to say important. >> there's be absurd results in the statute was interpreted was the challengers wanted to interpreted.

no one would be able to get insurance on a federal exchange if it's interpreted that way. there's another provision that says, basically, that only - you can only get - you can only get insurance on exchanges established by the state. it can't mean that. it's a more complicated answer to tell you why congress drafted this, so there are state exchanges, and federally facilitated exchanges if the states drop out. it was clearly drafted if they were established by the state within the meaning of the statute, some established by the state, some indirectly by the state's choice by the state to drop out. >> florida didn't do it itself, but the exchange can't be

accessed anywhere else, you can't go to alabama or florida, state. >> you brought it up in terms of the initial thing. no one expected 34 states to not do this. chris's point is interesting. in a brief that i read sh it's very good. he says that the absurd results would be the same as before obama care. that was bad. i wouldn't call it, people going into emergency rooms to get health care. it was bad. is it absurd to the level there's no way anyone can interpret the clear words. the reason we are here is words are clear at the begin. after that it's difficult. the results of this, and do we need to look at what could happen. is it the province of the court to ask maybe legislative changes could happen or people.

is it more complex than looking and saying established by state. there are reasons they did this. >> there'll be detrimental affect if the challenges win. i was making a textual argument. if you interpret the words the way the challengers interpret them, it requires a federal change to be established, but no one will qualify for subsidies. insurance. >> at all. >> at all. that's what i was trying to say. this is one of seven absurdities that the government point out. it's restricted only if you qualify - you can only get insurance on state's established by - on exchanges established by the state. it must include those that are

directly established and those ipp directly established. can i make one more point. four words we are heard about. people will be shocked that the four words are in the middle of one sentence that is 140 words long, and no one would read and think oh, this says you can only get subsidies on a state exchange. you might think the word only was in there. >> the i.r.s. read it that way originally. they were concerned. i think you were overstating your position. clearly there's a good case. we have to think about this in context. if the exchanges set up exchanges, it wouldn't have happen, you wouldn't have had the result. the reason they didn't is they changed the rule in 2012. nangs. >> let's get down to brass tacks. this law has been in operation for a long time.

this is not a theoretical argument about something we intend to do in the future. there are some millions of people who have purchased health care on the knangs. in a normal case we go to congress and say just fix this. but the attorney-general said this congress when asked why we couldn't do it. >> it was a bad move. >> it was valid. >> the statute or the reading of the statute does not hinge upon whether congress is functional. nancy pelosi looked down. you don't hing the statute on the function of congress. phrase.

>> it's irrelevant. it shouldn't be. >> is it irrelevant? >> whether congress can fix it? i agree it's relevant let me naj that my reading of the statue is awkwardly written. i welcome the statement that it is ambiguous. i think it is. as chief justice mentioned, this would bring deference in. >> it'slingo, you'll have to define it. >> under the famous 1984 chevron case, agencies get deference in interpretation of ambiguous statues. generally if the statute is ambiguous, as long as the agency gives it a permissible interpretation, the agency wins.

that's the case here. the chief justice made an interesting observation, which is under the chevron deference, an administration can change the statue. >> future i.r.s. could decide. >> he could read it. >> the secretary of health and human services. silvia burwell. does she get chevron deference. >> we don't get to that. you don't get to that until you get ambiguity. the government doesn't want to get to the position where they say it's important to functioning for the statute, and the i.r.s. could have chosen. they tried not to get there. they were close. should they get deference, absolutely not. there's good reason to believe that they did to this way, because they talked about it. they can't tell the states to do things, they have to give

incentives to the states, they do this all the time. ray, you brought up in the prior segment justice kennedy's interesting argument about constitutional avoidance, i really have been thinking about that, it's brilliant and may provide the fifth vote. there's a canon of statutory construction that if reading a statute one way causes a constitutional problem, you should read it to avoid the problem. he laid that out well, and it's those absolutely... >> there's a danger on that. that's what they did in the aca case. they said the statue would not work and rewrote it. they'd have to say the statue says what whe say it says. they'd -- what he says it says. they'd have to interpret it differently. it was absurd.

>> quick response. >> i disagree. you have to decide there's two constructions and choose the one fixing the constitutional problem. i'm thinking that's what justice kennedy will do. when we let you know what they'll do we'll have you back. still ahead on "inside story". who are the people that brought this case? >> it's not about people losing insurance, it never has been, it's about the law. >> that's lead plaintiff david king with lisa stark. lisa stark joins us next. this is "inside story", stay with us. >> the stream, >> your digital community >> you pick the hot topics and express your thoughts the stream it's your chance to join the conversation only on al jazeera america

you're watching "inside story" on al jazeera america i'm ray suarez. clarns gidion of gidion versus wayne right. homer plessy of plessy verses ferguson. miranda - landmark supreme court

cases begin with a person, an injury, a petition for release from harm. king versus burwell ends up being a big part if it plays a role in unravelling the affordable care account. the respond, the human secretary of health and human services - lisa stark set out on the trail of the elusive petitioner. she was in the supreme court for the argument. she is with me now. who is the guy? >> there's four petitioners. he is the lead petitioners. he's a vietnam vet. in his mid '60s, living in virginia, an our or so outside washington d.c. virginia has a federal exchange. it's a state before the supreme court, and he didn't want to talk to us, quite frankly. he basically said "no comment", called the attorneys, they said don't talk to the press. he feels a little burnt,

frankly, because a lot has been written about him, whether he should be part of the case, whether he should have veterans benefit. we have pleasant conversations. >> what does he say is the injury since it starts with that - stop doing harm. what is the harm to mr king? >> in the affidavits, what they say the injury is that they make so little money. he makes so little money that he falls below the individual mandate. if there were no subsidies, he would be exempt from getting insurance from obama care, as he falls below the income threshold, with subsidies, in fact, that's not the case. he has to get that insurance. his argument is "i don't want the insurance or pay the penalty, the tax penalty if i don't get the insurance." >> fascinating, stop helping me so much already.

who are the others involved. >> there are three other plaintiffs. they also are virginia residents. they were essentially corralled by the competitive institute, putting the lawsuit together, a libertarian think tank. one is a gentleman - three in their '60s. one will be eligible for medicare about the time this the supreme court decides this case. so the question is is she really going to be harmed, she won't need affordable care act. the issue is are they true victims, do they have legal standing - that was brought up in the court. >> from what i read, it didn't play a big role. >> it was brought up minutes, seconds, into the court proceeding today. it was talked about. the government said we are not arguing this. we are not arguing they don't have standing, because we don't have the information to know if it has standing.

it hasn't been given to us. the plaintiff's attorney came back and said no, at least two of the four, you only need one. two of the four, four plaintiffs do have standing, and justice roberts clearly didn't want to go that way, sighing little. one thing he said is oh, we are going to bring this up now - a little too late. >> those that miss school house rock. this is a moment where we remember the supreme court is an appellant court. they were not going to look at the balance sheets or checkbooks harmed. >> they can do that. and justice ginsberg said - it was interesting, the plaintiff's attorney said the government has not raised that issue, and justice ginsberg said "well, i can raise it", and, in fact, she did. it was clear that was not the this. >> were any in the court? >> the one couple in the court. there's a plaintiff by the name

of douglas hurst. he, his wife, came to washington d.c. i can't tell you if they sat in the courtroom. they were hear for the argument, came out and spoke to the media. >> full. >> it was packed. there were a number of lawmakers, republicans and democrats. nancy pelosi, a number of others, listening to the arguments. you and i know if the court throws out the subsidies for millions of americans, congress will look at okay, what are you going to do for these people. >> thank you for being with us, lisa stark, al jazeera. >> thank you that's all for this edition, we want you to talk to us, visit facebook, give us your feedback. we invite you to follow us on twitter, or follow me and get in touch. see you next time. in washington, i'm ray suarez.

>> louisiana's bayou, 70 miles southwest of new orleans. this is the heartland of the native american houma tribe. and it's one of the most valuable ecosystems in the entire united states. >> we go to the bayous to provide for our families. everything's there... >> r