Digital Commons Network^™

Is Medicaid Constitutional?, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost

Timothy S. Jost

Not available.

Finding A Positive Right To Healthcare, Nicole Huberfeld

Law Faculty Popular Media

In this blog post, Professor Nicole Huberfeld provides a review of Edward Rubin's article The Affordable Care Act, The Constitutional Meaning of Statutes, and the Emerging Doctrine of Positive Constitutional Rights, 53 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1639 (2012).

A Corporation Has No Soul - The Business Entity Law Response To Challenges To The Contraceptive Mandate Under The Ppaca, Thomas E. Rutledge

Thomas E. Rutledge

The most contentious matter in the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “PPACA”) is not a question of health care, but rather one of the law of business organizations. The dispute has been over the requirement that group health insurance plans provide, on a no-cost sharing basis, coverage for a variety of procedures and prescription medicines involving contraception and what are described as “abortificants.”

The class of suits subject to this discussion were filed by what are not religious organizations but rather for-profit business ventures, asserting that they should be exempt from the requirements of the …

Rights Of Belonging For Women, Rebecca E. Zietlow

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

If A Right To Health Care Is Argued In The Supreme Court, Does Anybody Hear It?, W. David Koeninger

Indiana Journal of Law and Social Equality

No abstract provided.

The Likely Impact Of National Federation On Commerce Clause Jurisprudence, Robert J. Pushaw Jr., Grant S. Nelson

Pepperdine Law Review

In National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court exhaustively analyzed Congress’s constitutional power to enact the watershed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA or “Obamacare”). The ACA imposes a “shared responsibility requirement,” popularly known as the “Individual Mandate” (IM), which forces Americans to buy medical insurance or pay a “penalty.” The ACA’s text and legislative history, as well as the public defenses of it by President Obama and his supporters, consistently described the IM as a valid exercise of Congress’s power “[t]o regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.” This reliance on the Commerce …

Chief Justice Roberts' Individual Mandate: The Lawless Medicine Of Nfib V. Sebelius, Gregory Magarian

Gregory P. Magarian

After the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius held nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional, praise rained down on Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice’s lead opinion broke with his usual conservative allies on the Court by upholding the Act’s individual mandate under the Taxing Clause. Numerous academic and popular commentators have lauded the Chief Justice for his political courage and institutional pragmatism. In this essay, Professor Magarian challenges the heroic narrative surrounding the Chief Justice’s opinion. The essay contends that the opinion is, in two distinct senses, fundamentally …

Realism Over Formalism And The Presumption Of Constitutionality: Chief Justice Roberts’ Opinion Upholding The Individual Mandate, Wilson Huhn

Akron Law Faculty Publications

Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act because he rejected formalism and embraced realism in constitutional analysis, and because he deferred to Congress, acknowledging its right to make policy choices.

Teaching The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) Case, Corey A. Ciocchetti

Corey A Ciocchetti

The ObamaCare case is one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in modern time. Even though it contains detailed constitutional law issues and is nearly 200 pages long, the case can be taught to undergraduates. These slides help tell the story and can be used to teach the case as well as constitutional law issues such as: (1) enumerated powers, (2) preemption, (3) federalism and more.

Realism Over Formalism And The Presumption Of Constitutionality: Chief Justice Roberts’ Opinion Upholding The Individual Mandate, Wilson Huhn

Wilson R. Huhn

Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act because he rejected formalism and embraced realism in constitutional analysis, and because he deferred to Congress, acknowledging its right to make policy choices.

The Great And Mighty Tax Law: How The Roberts Court Has Reduced Constitutional Scrutiny Of Taxes And Tax Expenditures, Linda Sugin

Faculty Scholarship

This article compares National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius – the Supreme Court’s decision upholding the individual mandate in Obamacare as a tax, with Arizona Christian Schools v. Winn – the Supreme Court’s decision denying standing to taxpayers with an Establishment Clause challenge to a state tax credit. It argues that these cases aggravate a growing tension between the economic and legal analyses of taxation by reducing the legal significance of economic analysis in constitutional cases. It suggests that Arizona Christian Schools was a truly radical decision because it conceptualized tax expenditures as private action immune from constitutional attack, …

A Response To Beyond Separation: Professor Copeland’S Ambitious Proposal For “Integrative” Federalism, Elizabeth Weeks

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Chief Justice Robert's Individual Mandate: The Lawless Medicine Of Nfib V. Sebelius, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

After the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius held nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional, praise rained down on Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice’s lead opinion broke with his usual conservative allies on the Court by upholding the Act’s individual mandate under the Taxing Clause. Numerous academic and popular commentators have lauded the Chief Justice for his political courage and institutional pragmatism. In this essay, Professor Magarian challenges the heroic narrative surrounding the Chief Justice’s opinion. The essay contends that the opinion is, in two distinct senses, fundamentally …

The Missing Due Process Argument, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

The argument that eventually persuaded five members of the Supreme Court to conclude that the individual mandate exceeded Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is one most observers originally considered frivolous. In that respect, it is similar to another potential argument against the mandate — that forcing someone to pay for insurance violates the liberty interests guaranteed by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The Commerce Clause argument was the centerpiece of the challenge to the mandate; the due process argument was not meaningfully advanced at all. This chapter suggests reasons why.

The Anti-Leveraging Principle And The Spending Clause After Nfib, Samuel R. Bagenstos

Articles

This Article offers an initial assessment of the Supreme Court’s Spending Clause holding in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (NFIB), which addressed the constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, NFIB marks “the first time ever” that the Court has held that a spending condition unconstitutionally coerced the states. The implications of that holding are potentially massive, and some of the language in the decision, if read broadly, would seriously threaten the constitutionality of a broad swath of federal spending legislation. Notwithstanding some of the Court’s language, this Article contends that the case …