Scalia criticized the court's interpretation, which he said "means nullifying the term 'by the State' not just once, but again and again."
He called the decision "interpretive jiggery-pokery," a "defense of the indefensible" and "pure applesauce."
And he wrote about the "somersaults of statutory interpretation" the court performed and said that "words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is 'established by the State.'"
Scalia has a history of scathing and unusual dissents. In his 2013 dissent of the Defense of Marriage Act decision, he accused the high court of legalistic "argle-bargle" and "scatter-shot rationales," and in 2014, he wrote that a decision about law enforcement being able to pull over drivers based on anonymous tips was a "freedom-destroying cocktail."
"[T]he cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites," he wrote Thursday. "I dissent."
You sure do, Justice Scalia.