In addition to the posts and essay I recommended yesterday, anyone wanting to sort through the federalism concerns that Justice Kennedy expressed at oral argument in King v. Burwell might find of interest these Forbes pieces by Avik Roy and Michael F. Cannon.

Roy, in offering seven reasons why Obamacare subsidies for state exchanges are not coercive, concludes that “if you understand how Obamacare’s insurance markets work, it’s clear that Kennedy should side with Obama’s challengers.”

Cannon points out that the IRS, in testimony to Congress, conceded that Obamacare “has some contradictory language in it” on exchange subsidies—and thus took a position that conflicts with the Obama administration’s current litigation stance that the text is somehow clearly in its favor.