Â鶹ŮÓÅ

Based on oral arguments this morning, the latest Supreme Court showdown over Obamacare could lead to another narrow ruling determining the fate of the health-care program. Here are five important takeaways from the hearing in King v. Burwell, a challenge an IRS rule providing financial assistance to millions purchasing health insurance through federal-run exchanges offered in states that did not create their own online marketplaces. (Millman, 3/4)

Obamacare returned to a divided Supreme Court Wednesday; this time the justices must figure out whether an obscure phrase in the massive law means that health-insurance subsidies should only go to people living in states that embrace the law.During 90 minutes of oral argument, the justices gave few hints about how they’ll determine the fate of the president’s health care law. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, the perennial swing justice, suggested that ruling against the White House would be an implicit approval of the federal government putting a gun to the states’ heads about insurance. (Haberkorn, 3/4)

At issue is the legality of the subsidies for an estimated 7.5 million subscribers in the 34 states that chose not to run their own health insurance exchanges, leaving it to the federal government. Critics argue the law as written only permits the subsidies to go to people who use state-run exchanges. The administration says the subsidies were intended to be available in all states.(Doyle, 3/4)

Unlike in 2012, the current case, King v. Burwell, doesn’t challenge the constitutionality of the law’s centerpiece that requires most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty. In a 5-4 ruling, the court that year decided the law could continue, albeit with a twist: states could elect not to expand Medicaid. But the latest case does challenge another piece that’s pivotal to making the law work: Whether tax credits to help moderate-income Americans afford coverage can be provided in the three dozen states where the marketplace is being run by the federal government. (Rovner, 3/4)

The Supreme Court sparred Wednesday over a lawsuit that could gut the Affordable Care Act across most of the nation, going overtime in arguments that suggested the law’s fate likely rests with two justices. The outcome of the case, a challenge to the insurance subsidies in the 2010 health law, appeared to turn on the views of Justice Anthony Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts . Justice Kennedy, in the biggest surprise from the session, suggested the challengers’ theory could face a constitutional roadblock, since it assumes Congress was trying to strong-arm the states into carrying out a federal policy. Chief Justice Roberts, who joined liberals to uphold most of the health law in 2012, was uncharacteristically quiet through most of the argument, leaving observers guessing. (Bravin and Kendall, 3/4)

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who helped rescue the law three years ago, gave no hint about how he might rule this time. And Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, another possible swing vote, voiced some reservations about the challenge, but also said he was troubled by how the Obama administration had implemented the law. (Savage and Levey, 3/4)

With yet another do-or-die test of Obamacare before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, the justices were sharply divided. By the end of the argument, it was clear that the outcome will be determined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy. The chief justice said almost nothing during the argument, and Kennedy sent mixed signals, seeming to give a slight edge to the administration's interpretation of the law. Judging by the comments from the remaining justices, the challengers would need the votes of both Roberts and Kennedy to win. (Totenberg, 3/4)

Supreme Court justices split along ideological lines Wednesday in a dramatic but collegial showdown in the latest legal battle over the Affordable Care Act, with the outcome difficult to predict. If President Obama could draw hope from the 1 hour and 25 minutes of debate about his signature domestic achievement, it would be because of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Three years ago, Kennedy was among the four dissenters who would have found the entire act unconstitutional. But Wednesday, with his comments and questions seeming to cut both ways, he appeared to be back in play. (Barnes, 3/4)

On Wednesday, as justices on the left and right pounced on both of the polished litigators before them — Michael Carvin for the opponents, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli for the government — Roberts maintained an almost stony silence. If he had decided how to vote on the case, he didn't want anyone to know. About the most noteworthy thing the chief justice said was a reference to that last case, which focused on the law's mandate that individuals buy insurance or pay a penalty. When liberal justices sought to tie Carvin to arguments he made in 2012, Roberts said, "We've heard talk about this other case. Did you win that other case?" As the laughter in the courtroom subsided, Roberts added, "So maybe it makes sense that you have a different story today." (Wolf, 3/4)

The IRS -- which is charged with implementing the law -- interprets the subsidies as being available for all eligible individuals in the health exchanges nationwide, in both exchanges set up by the states and the federal government. In Court , Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. defended that position. He ridiculed the challengers argument saying it "revokes the promise of affordable care for millions of Americans -- that cannot be the statute that Congress intended." But he was immediately challenged by Justice Antonin Scalia. (de Vogue, 3/4)

The justices will gather in private Friday to cast their votes in the case. The outcome after Wednesday's argument appears to be in the hands of two conservative justices — one who voted with the court's four liberals to uphold the law in 2012 and the other who joins the liberals more often, but who would have killed the whole thing three years ago. (Sherman, 3/5)

Kaiser Health News staff writers Mary Agnes Carey and Julie Rovner discuss Wednesday's oral arguments at the Supreme Court. Rovner attended the arguments and offers her report. (3/4)