The man who could cripple Obamacare isn’t shy about telling the world that he thinks the president is an “idiot,” posting altered images of the first lady in Middle Eastern clothing and expressing his hatred for the “Democraps” who enacted the health care law.

David M.King, 64, is the lead plaintiff on the Supreme Court case that challenges the government’s right to grant tax subsidies to millions of Americans in certain states to make health insurance more affordable. When the case is argued on March 4, King — friendly, with graying hair and a mustache — will become the public face of King v. Burwell, the most significant threat to the Affordable Care Act since the 2012 Supreme Court case that put the law’s individual mandate on the line.


“This case is about the IRS illegally rewriting the law. It’s not about anyone’s political beliefs or what is on their Facebook page. Our plaintiffs simply want their day in court,” said Sam Kazman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which says it is “coordinating and funding” the Supreme Court case. Kazman declined to explain how the plaintiffs were chosen.

King has not spoken publicly, but Thursday morning he welcomed a reporter into his ranch-style home in a middle-income section of Fredericksburg, Virginia. He is skeptical of the media — offering to let a reporter in only to “get the chill off” a cold February morning — and wouldn’t discuss the origins of his case.

“The Supreme Court is taking the case, so they obviously feel that it has merit,” King told POLITICO in the living room of his home, which is lined with mementos from his Vietnam War service and pictures of family and close friends.

A review of King’s public social media accounts show he is a proud grandfather who loves his family, enjoys cooking and sharing photos from conservative blogs. One image shows a photo from the movie “Back to the Future” with instructions to the time traveler: “Marty, there is no time to lose. You must go back in time and give Obama’s dad a condom.”

“Everyone is entitled to an opinion,” King said of his Facebook page, the only other public comments he would make.

On Facebook, King frequently criticizes Obamacare and immigration policies and espouses support for limited government, the Second Amendment and Republican political candidates. He jokes often that the federal government is watching him.

“So do you think NSA, FBI and the other three letter government workers watch face book? Just wonder because if they do I’ll have a house full of them soon. I guess we will be able to enjoy a cold beer and make fun of the idiot in the White House,” he posted on Oct. 8, 2013. “I sued the irs over this bull shit so … get ready.”

Court filings in this case show that he is married with no dependents, smokes tobacco and had a projected household income of $39,000 last year. He has owned a home in Fredericksburg since 1978, according to public records. He lives in the congressional district now represented by Rep. David Brat, who ousted former Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the primary last year.

According to his Facebook page, he is a fan of Neil Diamond, “Duck Dynasty” and the New England Patriots.

While King frequently posts political items on his public page, he has shared sensitive moments, too.

“I realized tonight that life isn’t as bad as we make it out to be,” he wrote in late 2014 after meeting a boy with a terminal illness and his father. “His son is about 4 years old and a beautiful little boy. His dad told me he only has another five years. I stood there with tears in my eyes. I’ll pray for this little guy. So next time you think life is bad think about this little boy.”

If King’s lawsuit succeeds, the law’s subsidies could be eliminated in at least 34 states and the insurance markets in those areas could become dramatically unbalanced toward the most sick and most expensive patients.

King is one of four Virginia residents who filed the lawsuit. The other three are: Douglas Hurst, a 63-year-old from Virginia Beach, who is married with no dependents and makes $35,000 a year; Brenda Levy, 64 and single from Richmond, who expects to earn $43,000; and 56-year-old Rose Luck of Petersburg, who is married and whose annual income is about $45,000.

The four plaintiffs argue that the way the health law is written does not allow the tax subsidies to go to residents of the 34 states that did not set up insurance exchanges. The law, they say, intended to grant subsidies only in states that set up exchanges.

Backed by several Republican lawmakers who have filed briefs to the Supreme Court, they argue that the Obama administration has been illegally allowing residents of any state to get the subsidies.

All four of the challengers say they don’t want to have to buy insurance under Obamacare’s individual mandate and shouldn’t have to accept the law’s tax subsidies either.

King argues that because the Obama administration is illegally making him eligible for subsidies, he has to comply with the individual mandate. If he didn’t get the subsidy, insurance would be “unaffordable” to him under the health law and he wouldn’t have to worry about the individual mandate’s penalties.

The Obama administration argues that the health law allows residents of any state to get a subsidy if his or her income level qualifies. It says that the challengers are improperly reading one line of the law — that subsidies go to an “exchange established by the state”— and not taking into account Congress’ intent to give subsidies to everyone.

The district court sided with the Justice Department and the appeals court agreed. In July, the plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to hear their case.

King’s lawsuit was one of four very similar cases — all filed in 2013 — challenging the tax subsidies in Obamacare.

If King’s case didn’t get to the Supreme Court first, the role played by King could have been filled by the state of Indiana, the attorney general of Oklahoma or Jacqueline Halbig, the plaintiffs in the three other cases.

Halbig, who filed her lawsuit in the District of Columbia, is a former Health and Human Services lawyer in the George W. Bush administration. Kazman, who is general counsel at CEI, is coordinating both the King and Halbig cases. Kazman has a history of challenging government regulations, such as the Sarbanes-Oxley law, fuel efficiency and environmental regulations.

If Halbig had lost in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, she could have immediately petitioned the Supreme Court, but she won. That 2-1 ruling delivered a blow to the law, but shifted her out of the most favorable position for Supreme Court review.

Legal experts said lawyers pursuing a high-profile Supreme Court challenge often want a sympathetic litigant, but the personal story is usually more significant from a public relations perspective than as an arguing point in front of the justices.

“If you’re being honest, of course you care who is the face of your case,” said University of Richmond law professor Kevin Walsh, a former clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. “Anyone would rather have a sympathetic person rather than a non-sympathetic person to the extent that you can control that variable.”

Walsh said the litigant’s history matters more in the court of public opinion than in the court system itself.

“Criminal defendants win at the court all the time. [The justices] truly don’t care about individual circumstances that have no bearing on the legal merits … What you really end up with are competing attempts to shape the media environment,” he said.

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.