By Monday, but possibly as early as this morning, we’ll know how the Supreme Court decided King v. Burwell. Its ruling in that case will determine whether the Affordable Care Act continues operating as designed, or whether its most zealous opponents successfully convinced five conservative justices to discontinue the law’s crucial tax credits in states that use federally facilitated exchanges.

Because the formula for determining the value of those subsidies is tied to the price of insurance purchased through an “exchange established by the state,” Obamacare’s challengers argue that the value of subsidies for insurance purchased through a federally facilitated exchange should be $0. This incomplete calculation ignores abundant contextual evidence showing that the ACA’s authors crafted federal exchanges to be identical substitutes for state-created exchanges.

Whether the justices choose to admit that evidence will determine whether the health care law survives or becomes crippled in about three dozen states. But the holding won’t be as simple as thumbs up or down. The way the majority crafts its decision could carry important ramifications for law and politics well into the future. Here are the most plausible outcomes.

The Government Wins

Any decision that keeps subsidies flowing to federally facilitated exchanges will be described as a victory for the government. But such a decision could take different forms, with wildly different implications.

1. Clear language