But during Wednesday’s arguments in King v. Burwell, Justice Samuel Alito floated an idea that would scramble this narrative. In the event that the justices determine that the IRS acted illegally by approving subsidy payments to individuals who purchased insurance through a federal exchange, Alito suggested the Court could issue a “stay” of such ruling. This could trigger a serious debate on healthcare policy and have new ramifications for the 2016 presidential race.

As explained by Jonathan Adler, a Case Western Reserve University law professor who was one of the intellectual architects of the King challenge, a stay could simply be the Court invalidating the subsidies, but declaring that its order wouldn’t go into effect until the new tax year.

The thinking would be that individuals, businesses, and states would have made a set of decisions based on the assumption that the subsidies would be flowing, so it would be unfair to change that policy in the middle of the tax year without adequate time to adjust.