( CNN ) -- On Tuesday morning , the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit killed a regulation that is key to making Obamacare work . Its decision in Halbig v. Burwell , if it were the last word on the matter , would have significant -- and damaging -- consequences for millions of Americans who purchase health insurance on exchanges established and run by the federal government . Fortunately , it wo n't be the last word on the matter . And the decision issued later Tuesday by another federal appellate court -- the 4th Circuit -- in King v. Burwell makes clear why : The D.C . Circuit 's decision got basically everything wrong . It misunderstood the text , structure and purpose of the Affordable Care Act . The Justice Department has already indicated that it will ask the entire D.C . Circuit to review the Halbig v. Burwell decision , and when it does , it will no doubt reverse it . These two cases are both part of what Judge Harry Edwards , the dissenting judge in Halbig , termed a `` not-so-veiled attempt to gut '' the Affordable Care Act . As the members of Congress who led the enactment of the law made clear in a `` friend of the court '' brief they submitted to both courts this year , the fundamental purpose of the statute was to achieve universal health care coverage , and the Internal Revenue Service providing tax credits that act as subsidies so low- and middle-income Americans can pay for health care is central to doing so . The plaintiffs in these challenges argue that these tax credits should not be available to people who buy insurance in the 36 states with exchanges operated by the federal government -- that is , who got their subsidized health coverage through HealthCare.gov , not a state-run exchange . It 's a position that 's not only completely without legal merit -- `` tortured '' and `` nonsensical , '' according to one of the 4th Circuit judges -- it 's also one that would critically undermine how Obamacare works . What the Obamacare court decisions mean for you . But rather than looking at the law as a whole and considering what it was attempting to accomplish , the D.C . Circuit judges focused on one small provision of what is a long and complicated statute . Edwards called the plaintiffs ' argument `` illogical when cast in the context of the statute as a whole . '' Indeed , the plaintiffs themselves appeared to recognize how flawed their argument , based on the statute 's language , was and thus manufactured an explanation for why Congress would have written the statute to eliminate the tax credits on federally facilitated exchanges . According to the plaintiffs , Congress wanted to encourage the states to set up their own exchanges . The only problem , as Edwards noted , is that the `` claim is nonsense , made up out of whole cloth . '' The legal reasoning in the majority 's opinion is so weak it is difficult to understand it as anything but a political decision . And that is what makes particularly galling the judges ' professed `` reluctance '' to reach their conclusion . These judges assert that their hands were tied by the `` limited '' role of judges in our democratic system . In other words , they imply , their decision -- which could have massive consequences for millions of Americans -- was actually an exercise of judicial restraint . Appeals courts differ on Obamacare . There 's nothing restrained about misreading a law 's text , disregarding its structure and ignoring its purpose . In fact , it was the 4th Circuit judges who exercised true judicial restraint . Two of those judges concluded that the statute was unclear and that they should therefore defer to the agencies charged with implementing the law -- in this case , the IRS , which would provide the tax credit subsidies . ( The other judge concluded that the statute is unambiguous , but in the other direction , and requires that tax credits be available on federally facilitated exchanges . ) As those judges recognized , where a law is unclear , the proper role of a judge is generally to defer to a reasonable construction offered by the executive branch agencies charged with implementing the statute . The judges in Halbig seemed so determined to undermine the Affordable Care Act that they ignored this bedrock legal principle . Fortunately , they wo n't have the last word on the subject .
Brianne Gorod : D . Circuit panel got it wrong by dealing blow to how Obamacare works . She says 4th Circuit panel was right and that both challenges were of right 's attempt to gut law . D.C . Circuit ruled against federal subsidies for those signing up , ignoring law 's intent , she says . Gorod : Review of decision by entire D.C . Circuit Court will likely reverse flawed decision .