it was written, those four words, do you regret they were in the report? >> you know, it's -- you are taking four words completely out of the context of the law. the law is clear that if the state does not establish an exchange the federal government stands in the shoes of the state, and that is in the context of making shopping more available to individuals, all of the functions of the exchange are covered by whoever sets up the exchange the state or the federal government. so the law is clear that the feds are standing in the shoes of the state in that situation. if you take those four words completely out of that context, obviously which justice roberts and kennedy rejected then i can see how you would come to that conclusion, but without that there's really no way that you uphold that argument. >> how concerned are you by further challenges to the aca at this point?

>> it's -- i mean we have had almost 60 votes to repeal the law in the house. we have had one presidential election, now we have two supreme court decisions that affirm the law. i am really hopeful that at this point, we can finally get to a place where we can actually begin to legislate on the affordable care act. i think democrats across the board have said there are places where we can improve it work on it, make it work better for people most importantly, and i'm very hopeful after all of this turmoil we can finally get to that point. >> yvette thank you for your incites this morning. i'm going to bring david back into the conversation. david as we look at these two supreme court rulings, 2012 and now today, both upholding the aca, how do we take a step back and gauge the success of the law

at this point? >> you are right. i think when you look at all of the challenges, more than 50 against this, three legal decisions against this two in the supreme court, the presidential election there has been a lot of challenge to this law. it has stayed afloat but what you see in terms of where the rubber meets the road is the 16 million people who have gotten health insurance. that's a number that is undeniable, a number that the president and others who are proponents of this law really put forth, but as we go forward, and as some of these challenges continue as rev up people are getting accustomed to the subsidies and getting accustomed to not have their insured discriminate against them because they have diabetes or some other factor that in the past jacked up their premiums. i would think as this becomes more a part of day-to-day life and things that they expect the government to provide for, the

medicaid, social security and now the sib sid diezed health insurance, this is something that seems at least today, that is here to say. >> it gets incredibly hard at some point to make the entire law go away. david ariosto, thank you. we are following breaking news from the supreme court. the justices ruling today 6-3, to uphold subsidies in the affordable care act. the decision will preserve health insurance for millions of americans. chief justice roberts said quote congress passed the affordable care act to improve health insurance markets not to destroy them. this is the second major victory for the obama administration. mike viqueira joining us from the white house, mike any reaction yet from the white house? >> i would think they would say that it is the president's most

significant domestic achievement of the 2.5 terms he has served so far here at the white house. part of the context is what would have happened if the court ruled the other way. there would have been 6.4 million people who would have lost their ability to pay their insurance premiums. the whole law is predicated on the idea that healthy people pay their premiums that are part of this insurance pool so everybody's premiums can come down, and as david pointed out, the rise in the cost of health care, that curve has been lowered somewhat since obamacare was instituted. so it would have really thrown a monkey wrench in to the entire actuarial table if you will. and it would have forced more lower income people into unpaid care. they would have been back at the emergency room. this is one of the goals of the affordable care act, was to get

people to stop going to the emergency room for their doctor and that would have presumably increased if the court ruled against them. as michael shure pointed out, republicans if they ruled the other way, they would have been like the dog who caught the car. it would have been on them. we would have heard, you broke it you fix it. you bought it. you have been going after the affordable care act all this time you have now thrown a huge bomb into the middle of it you what are you going to do to fix this. and there were a lot of republicans who were very ambivalent about the way this was going. so they still have the issue, it still resinates with the base the tea party on town and now they have the added issue of electing a republican president.

they are obviously going to be disappointed with justice roberts, he is not going anywhere, but there will be vacancies in the court. so in a sense, in a political sense, and in a sense of lower income individuals who now have insurance, everybody wins stephanie. >> mike viqueira thank you for that. i want to get to another key decision by the high court this morning. they have upheld a key tool fof fighting housing bias in texas. they ruled 5-4 that federal housing laws can prohibit seemingly neutral practices that harm minorities. it is known as disparate impact. let's go back to lisa stark live at the supreme court. was this a surprising decision for fair housing? >> reporter: it was, many feared the court would go the other way. because the court had been seeking out a case on this very issue, and the concern was they

were seeking out a case to try to gut what many say would be a key part of the fair housing act. this act was passed just days after the assassination of martin luther king, jr., that allowed president johnson to push it through congress. this essentially says that you can challenge decisions that don't overtly discriminate, but do in fact create a disparate impact as you said in fact create an impact that does harm minority population. and the issue here in texas was fair housing credits. they were given out to build low income housing, but those who challenged the way they were given out, said look you are only giving them to developers who build in minority neighborhoods. and that is creating these pockets of poverty, and the people who argued that have won

today, and the fair housing act stands. >> let's bring back burt newborn newborn. burt, i can guess where you stand on this in that you supported this ruling. how is this going to affect housing throughout the country? >> i don't think we should exaggerate the impact. people had assumed that the fair housing act allowed disparate impact litigation. almost all of the lower courts routinely entertained exactly this type of case. the supreme court has in the past taken the case twice, and the liberal groups were so frightened that the court was going to reverse, that they settled the cases out from under the court twice. this was the third time this issue was up. and the various liberal groups were very nervous, because the statute says nothing about

creating this type of remedy it talks much more in terms of intentional discrimination and the lower courts had implied an extension of that but allowing that there was a disparate impact not a disparate at t tempt. and today justice kennedy provides the fifth vote to uphold that. and there's a really interesting case between this case and the obamacare case because they are both deep cases about how you read text. justice scalia said look if there's no statutory provision in the law, we shouldn't put it in there, just as he read in king v burrwell say look these four words mean what they say, and we have to enforce it even if it leaves us with chaos. and he has not been able to get

the majority of the court to go with him on these cases. kennedy abandoned him on the fair housing case and kennedy and roberts abandoned him on the other case. the court isn't driven by kind of literalism that forces it to make decisions that everybody says are crazy. the text is -- is useful for the court to reach coherent and intelligent decisions, and therefore, we're not trapped in a kind of literalist prison so i think law professors and lawyers are going to view these two cases of the beginning of the emergence of the more traditional way they look at text. the context and the wisdom of the outcome.

>> the fair housing case was the most race-related case that was in this supreme court session. you can't help but think this happened in a vacuum given the topical discussion we are having today about race. >> sure. they have to be affected by what they see in the world, but they really try to insulate themselves from it and make legal decisions. there is a tendency to reduce everything they do to a political, the left wins the right wins the liberals win, the conservatives win. they honestly don't think of it that way. they think they are pursuing a more neutral kind of legal philosophy. for example, if you ask them about both cases today, i bet you, they would talk more about what they say about how you read statutes and text than the

political outcome of either case. >> burt newborn thank you for your incites. >> it was the efforts of a non-profit group that brought the issue of the fair housing before the court. erika pitsy has more with the background in this case. >> reporter: i told you to stay! con fronted by police after residents complained they don't belong. the host of the party says comments by a white neighbor ignited the situation. >> she was saying things like the black f-er and that's why you live in section 8 homes. >> reporter: equal housing advocates say the policy is dividing the city along racial lines. in 2008 a non-profit group sued both mckinney and neighboring dallas for discrimination for how they administer policies.

activists said the tax breaks are offered almost solely for housing build in minority makes. >> dallas has a long history of housing policy being used and having the effect of perpetuating racial segregation in the city. >> reporter: this year the issued lands before the supreme court. racial discrimination when selling or renting property is illegal. the fair housing act became law in 1968 on the heels of the civil rights act. it guarantees equal access to a home without consideration of race religion or national origin. it once to the court to decide whether the act covers unintended discrimination as well, what known is disparate impact. the justices heard oral

arguments in january, offering few clues about how they might vote. >> which is the bad thing to do? not promote better housing in a low-income area or no promote housing integration. >> reporter: opponents say it is impossible to prove disparate impact. but a ruling in their favor housing advocates say would be a pivotal step towards equal rights. >> and again, the justices ruled 5-4. we're following breaking news from the supreme court. we'll be right back. ♪

right now... >> al jazeera america we're following breaking news from the supreme court, the justices ruling today 6-3 to uphold subsidies in the affordable care act. the decision will preserve health insurance for millions of americans. chief justice roberts said quote: sfz this is the second major victory for the obama administration for the most significant domestic achievement. lisa stark is live at the supreme court with more. >> first i want to set the scene

for you a little bit here stephanie. no one knows which decisions the court are going to come out with on any given day. as of this morning there were seven still outstanding, including the affordable care act. protesters had gathered here to see if this decision was coming down, and if the same-sex marriage ruling has come down. what you're hearing behind me lots of people here who support the affordable care act, who were brought here by families usa, which is a group that supports the affordable care act, and they are chanting the aca is here to stay. they obviously gave a big cheer when the ruling came down. as you say, it was a 6-3 decision. the chief justice writing the majority. there were just four words in this very very long 100-page

statute. the question was do exchanges established by the state, are those the only ones where individuals are eligible for federal tax subsidies to help pay for their insurance? if the court had ruled that way, about 6.5 million people would have lost their healthcare subsidies, but those were the words, that those subsidies were available to folks who bought their insurance through the state. justice roberts said tax credits are one of the act's key reforms and deciding whether they are available to everyone is a deep question. he says the language is plain. and if you read it that way, it would only be available to people who live in states where they established their own healthcare exchanges. but he said in context it's clear that congress meant these

subsidies should be available to everyone nationwide. he said it compels the court to find this interpretation, because otherwise it would destabilize the entire individual insurance market and he said and would lead to what has been called the death spiral for this affordable care act, in fact it would basically undo the entire act. scalia wrote for the three descenters. he said that upholding this act is absurd. he said these are the words. we have to go by the words. yes, it may destabilize the insurance market. but this is what the statute says. but obviously a major victory for the white house, for supporters of the affordable care act stephanie, the second time the court, with justice roberts leading the way in fact has ruled to uphold key portions

of the affordable care act. a big disappointment to those who are so opposed to this law. >> lisa to hear you describe these four words established by the state, it almost sounds like a technicality. how did this particular case -- and i no it was a single plaintiff that brought this case -- how did this end up being the one that the high court heard on the aca? >> reporter: there were four people who were the folks who would challenge the law. they were recruited by a group opposed to the affordable care act. they all lived in virginia and their argument was, look if we didn't have these subsidies, we probably would be too poor to buy insurance, and you are forcing us to buy insurance because you are giving us these subsidies. that was the argument they made. some people argued they really didn't have standings to decide this case but they decided it on the merit. justice roberts making it clear

that they have to look at the interp facingation interp -- interpretation. opponents have made it clear that they will be looking for any legal avenue to challenge this law, so at this point it would seem there would be no legal avenues left but i wouldn't rule that out at this point. >> okay. lisa thank you. sam was one of the lead counsel arguing against the affordable care act. here was his reaction to the ruling. >> today's ruling is a tragedy for the rule of law in this country. in a 6-3 decision the supreme court has twisted and somersaulted on traditional rules of statutory interpretation, and allowed the irs to rewrite the statute that congress enacted. this is an incredible breach of the separation of powers, and for that reason it is all the more important for congress to now do two things, one protect

that separation of powers even more vigilantly and secondly to undertake real reform on obamacare, and the problems it is causing for millions of americans. >> david you have covered the botched rollout of obamacare, all the way up until today's supreme court decision defending this law, but you heard the lead counsel on the other side. this law isn't perfect, nobody is saying it is. >> there is a shortage of perfection in any law, but this law takes the cake. this was a law that they tried to get out while they still had a democratly controlled congress. but there has been a lot of talk about the so-called death spiral, what would have happened if the court ruled in favor of king. there is a little bit of

misnomer. this would have jacked up insurance for people in many states many people would have been kicked out of the marketplace, and it is sort of the linchpin of the affordable care act but there are some other big portions of this law that would have stayed in place. the inability to discriminate against those who have a different gender. women have had higher insurance premiums. people that had a preexisting condition like diabetes would have paid more. but as we look forward clearly -- this is still a political hot potato but when you look at the rollout, and 16 million who have gotten insurance in the wake of this i think it's important to put it in historical context. in 1965 when they rolled out medicaid and medicare you still had states that had to buy into these programs and it wasn't until 1980 that arizona came the

last state to essentially adopt it. look at medicaid expansion here this is going to take time. >> and there are still groups that are trying to disassemble the law. >> absolutely. to reform the healthcare system even as comprehensive as this bill was, it is going to take time. >> david thank you. i want to go to fellow and deputy director of the manhattanist ought to for policy research. he is still looking for changeings in the aaffordable care act and doesn't agree with it, in its current form. give me your take on today's supreme court decision. >> you know, i was always a little bit on the fence on this issue. i didn't find myself completely agreeing with the plaintiffs or the administration. i'm glad to be over this hump to be honest because i think

now we can start focusing on making changes to the law that really need to happen. i think focusing on these court challenges for people who want to reform the aca has been a bit of a mistake. you can't wait for the court to overturn a law, or give an opportunity to make changes, you have to pursue them. >> because it make it more difficult to make changes to the aca? >> absolutely. i think it will be an uphill battle at this point. >> they already have the authority to not set up an exchange, so what other changes would you like to see? >> so in particular under the

aca, there is something called state innovation waivers, that allow them to get funding. and ideas you give states this bundle of money, and let them figure out the best way to use that money to provide health insurance for their population. one-size fit all approaches don't really work and there's no reason it can't work for healthcare now. >> the other problem that states have talked about in executing the affordable care act is that some of them simply don't have the resources to provide healthcare that all of these additional people that now have health insurance need. >> right. and this is such a problem at the local level, and a lot of states there are poorly designed regulations, very misguided.

that's why you have states with so-called certificate of need laws. it requires hospitals and other providers to apply for permission to basically expand. and when you do that what you are saying is if you are an incumbent provider you are going to be able to control the market, jack up prices so you limit the ability of people with new insurance programs to actually access the system. >> let's talk about the political implications of all of this. we have heard the law is still imperfect, talk about the process for making changes. michael shure let's start with you. >> i think there will be a time-out taken from people i have spoken to on the hill leading ip up to this. because as we head into an election season, it's easier for

republicans to attack existing laws and democrats to trump existing law. >> mike what about you, this is obviously a huge victory for president obama. was he prepared that it might not go his way? >> reporter: that's a good question, because for several wakes they said they weren't preparing for that contingency, but theyeven though this decision was happening in the cloistered atmosphere of the supreme court, they didn't want to put that out there in then -- energy of the world if you will. the president expressed confidence that the court was going to rule in his favor, and uphold the affordable care act and that is in fact what has happened stephanie. >> mike viqueira and michael shure stay with us, we are

following breaking news out of the supreme court which has just upheld a key provision of the affordable care act. we'll be right back.

>> announcer: this is al jazeera. ♪ hello, welcome to the news hour i'm jane dutton in doha these are the stop stories. isil fighters infiltrate the strategic syrian town of kobani for the first time in six months. no deal in sight as european leaders get into a scramble to find a solution to the greek debt crisis. the supreme court in the u.s. upholds the