President Obama’s health care law was saved by a Supreme Court ruling for the second time in three years on Thursday.

The justices voted 6-3 to reject a challenge to the law’s financial structure by conservatives. The court ruled that federal subsidies may be offered in both state and federal health care exchanges or marketplaces. The ruling would seem to place the 2010 statute on solid legal footing for the immediate future.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court’s majority. “If at all possible, we must interpret the act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoid the latter.”

The ruling upholds that the Affordable Care Act authorized federal tax credits for eligible Americans living not only in states with their own exchanges but also in the 34 states with federal marketplaces.

Justices Scalia, Alito and Thomas ruled for the minority. 

Scalia, who wrote a dissent, argued it was not the court’s job to make up for the sloppy drafting of the law by Congress, calling the decision “wonderfully convenient” and complaining about “interpretive somersaults” in the majority opinion.

Reaction poured in swiftly from both sides of the political aisle. Democrats quickly praised the ruling, while Republicans criticized the decision.

“I respect the court and its role in our system of government, but Obamacare remains a terrible law,” said U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley [R-Iowa]. “Iowans tell me directly in town meetings and in emails and letters to my office that they don’t like the law.”

Grassley added that he believes Obamacare “upends” the healthcare system and that it is now up to Congress to make any changes.

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling does not change the fundamental reality that Obamacare is a poorly conceived and reckless law,” said U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst [R-Iowa]. “I remain committed to working towards a sustainable health care system that puts the focus back on Iowa families and individuals.”

Ernst said she will continue to support Republican plan to replace the law “with affordable, patient centered alternatives.”

U.S. Rep. Steve King [R-Iowa] was equally critical in a video statement released by his office.

“They have ruled essentially that the law doesn’t mean what it says,” said King, who represents Ames.

“Even though the law doesn’t authorize the federal government to create exchanges within the states — only the states can do that by the language of Obamacare — the Roberts court has ruled that in the totality of the reading and understanding, they can divine it should be in there, so they decided by the court they are going to put it in there,” King said.

He added it was a “frustrating” day, saying he is concerned that the Supreme Court continues to hand down rulings that go contrary to the text of laws passed by Congress.

“Today’s Supreme Court decision is a big relief for the thousands of Iowa families who would have faced large, unforeseen, out of pocket increases in their health care costs,” said U.S. Rep. Dave Loebsack of Iowa’s second district. Loebsack is the only Democrat in Iowa’s Congressional Delegation at the moment.

Presidential candidates also weighed in just as quickly. 

Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton applauded the decision, saying the law is “working.” One of her opponents, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, said the ruling “recognized the common-sense reading” of the law, but he continued to call for single-payer healthcare, a platform plank of his presidential campaign.

Republican hopeful Jeb Bush said he was “disappointed” with the ruling, but added the fight to repeal Obamacare is not over. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee called the ruling “judicial tyranny,” while almost every other candidate put out a statement continuing to promise a repeal if they are elected.