Two federal courts ruled contradictory decisions on the subsidies of the Affordable Care Act on Tuesday.

In one case, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the ACA does not grant the federal government to issue insurance subsidies if it was distributed from the federal exchange, which is used in 36 states. The Federal exchange was created due to states declining to create their own insurance exchange marketplace. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals noted the states that did establish their own insurance marketplace are still eligible to receive their federal subsidies. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals cited ambiguous language in the ACA.

Meanwhile the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal government does have the right to provide insurance subsidies through the federal exchange.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals wrote, "Although the Act expressly contemplates state-run Exchanges, Congress created a contingency provision that permits the federal government, via the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to 'establish and operate such Exchange within the State and...take such actions as are necessary to implement such other requirements.' This contingency provision is triggered when a state elects not to set up an Exchange, when a state is delayed in setting up an Exchange, or when a state Exchange fails to meet certain statutory and regulatory requirements."

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals did note that the "literal reading" of the ACA refers to insurance exchange programs by the "state" and the court cannot decide on what was Congress's intent.

The two court rulings are open to the appeals process. The federal government will likely lead the appeal process for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals verdict. According to Time, the conflicting court decisions will not immediately change provisions of the ACA.

If the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision was to be upheld, the fallout we would be an "immense" change for more than seven million people, from the 36 states, who are projected to have insurance subsidies from the federal exchange by 2016. The elimination of the insurance subsidies could result in health care premiums to increase.

A third lawsuit by Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wisc., challenged an ACA provision regarding staffers only receiving health plans from the healthcare law. Johnson claimed the federal Office of Personnel Management "created a loophole that allowed congressional staff an exemption from the ACA's provisions. U.S. District Judge William Griesbach dismissed Johnson's lawsuit on July 21. The judge said Johnson failed to provide how he was affected or harmed by the ACA.

Despite Griesbach's ruling, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, Johnson reiterated the Obama administration "violated" the ACA by giving special treatment to specific members of Congress and their staff.

__

For the latest updates, follow Latin Post's Michael Oleaga on Twitter: @EditorMikeO or contact via email: m.oleaga@latinpost.com.