Today, the Supreme Court justices will hear oral arguments in King v. Burwell. This is yet another legal challenge to the president’s health-care law: If the court rules against the administration, millions of Americans who have purchased insurance for themselves and their families will lose their federal premium subsidies and face huge cost increases.

While an administration loss would certainly be harsh for those who bought insurance on the federal exchange, it would still be the correct decision in so far as the government extended these subsidies illegally. In preparation for today, I thought it would be useful to point NR readers in the direction of a few pieces by the scholars behind the suit: Jonathan Adler and Michael Cannon.

In addition to the must-read piece Cannon wrote for National Review today, he explained what’s at stake in the lawsuit yesterday in U.S. News and World Report:

In King v. Burwell, the plaintiffs aren’t challenging the Affordable Care Act; they want to uphold the act — and thereby protect tens of millions of taxpayers from illegal taxes. The law’s supporters, instead of defending the law or taxpayers, are defending an out-of-control IRS.
The IRS is subjecting more than 8 million taxpayers to penalties under Obamacare’s individual mandate, and more than 250,000 employers and 57 million taxpayers to penalties under the law’s employer mandate, even though it has no authority to do so. The IRS just decided to expand its own powers.

This morning, in USA Today, Cannon argues that jobs depend on Obamacare’s defeat:

The victims of this illegal Obamacare expansion include Kevin Pace, a jazz musician and adjunct professor of music in Northern Virginia. Anticipating the Obamacare mandate that employers cover all workers who put in at least 30 hours a week, Pace’s employer was forced to cut hours for part-time professors like him in order to avoid massive penalties. In 2013, The Washington Postreported that Pace was left with “an $8,000 pay cut.” “Thousands of other workers in Virginia” also had their hours cut. Even though the Obama administration has delayed the employer mandate, many employers have left the cuts in place for when the rules are enforced.

Here is a Scotusblog piece of his from last year that runs through seven myths about King v. Burwell. And you can find much more by Cannon here at his Forbes blog.

Finally, over at the Washington Post, Jonathan Adler has a convenient list of the Volokh Conspiracy blog’s greatest King v. Burwell hits. He concludes his post with this:

If, somehow, all this is not enough, here’s the video of my recent Federalist Society debate on the case, and here’s a link to the amicus brief I co-authored with Michael Cannon. All the other briefs are available here.

Happy reading, and may the Supreme Court be on the side of taxpayers today.