Law Commons^™

Decolonizing Equal Sovereignty, Rosa Hayes

William & Mary Journal of Race, Gender, and Social Justice

In Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), the Supreme Court announced that a tradition of equal sovereignty among the states prohibits unwarranted federal intrusions into state sovereignty and invoked this newly created doctrine to strike down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act. Scholarly critiques in Shelby County’s immediate aftermath debated the constitutional validity of the Court’s equal sovereignty reasoning and warned of the dire threat the VRA’s effacement posed to voting rights—concerns that recent litigation have vindicated.

But other recent litigation suggests that, abstracted from its problematic and consequential origins, equal sovereignty may be deployed …

Mhpaea & Marble Cake: Parity & The Forgotten Frame Of Federalism, Taleed El-Sabawi

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

No abstract provided.

Aliessa V. Novello, Diane M. Somberg

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Supreme Court, New York County, Khrapunskiy V. Doar, Daphne Vlcek

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protecting From Endless Harm: A Roadmap For Coercion Challenges After N.F.I.B. V. Sebelius, Eric Turner

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In N.F.I.B. v. Sebelius, a plurality of the Supreme Court struck down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid (PPACA) expansion. The Court did so by holding that the doctrine “coerced” States into implementing federal policy by threatening to withhold Medicaid funding to states that did not reform their Medicaid programs. This marks the first time a program properly enacted under Congress’ Spending Power has been found to coerce the states. The Court’s coercion analysis, however, has raised more questions than it answered. The plurality’s language is vague, and commentators have struggled to analyze the holding. But what …

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.

Advocacy In Health Proceedings In New York State, Kia C. Franklin

Touro Law Review

Individuals and communities navigating the healthcare system without an advocate often experience devastating outcomes and become burdened with unnecessary costs. These negative outcomes undermine the very utility of our healthcare system. The creation of a legal right to counsel for individuals with critical health related claims would meet an important and unmet need in our health and legal systems by empowering patients, improving the quality of health for many, and preventing unnecessary costs to the health care system.

A dedicated group of healthcare advocates, lawyers, public policy analysts, and other concerned individuals gathered together at Touro Law Center to strategize …

Harris V. Mcrae: Whatever Happened To The Roe V. Wade Abortion Right?, Laura Crocker

Pepperdine Law Review

The controversial Roe v. Wade decision purportedly removed the abortion controversy from the political arena and set constitutional standards by which questions on the issue could be resolved. The enactment of the Hyde Amendment, a bill which generally forbids the use of Medicaid funds for abortions, was a recent political response to the abortion controversy. However, in the recent case of Harris v. McRae, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Hyde Amendment and thus injected the abortion controversy back into the political arena. The author exhaustively examines the abortion controversy from the time of the Roe decision up …

Medicaid Expansion, The Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act, And The Supreme Court's Flawed Spending Clause Coercion Reasoning In National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, L. Darnell Weeden

Cleveland State Law Review

The issue to be addressed is whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (ACA or “Obamacare”) manifest goal of promoting the general welfare of the nation by encouraging states to expand their existing Medicaid plans is a coercive use of Congress’ power under the Spending Clause if the federal government permanently picks up at least 90 percent of the cost of the expansion. The Spending Clause grants Congress the power “to pay the Debts and provide for the . . . general Welfare of the United States.” To make certain that federal money given to the States is used …

Court Of Appeals Of New York - Giaquinto V. Comm’R Of New York State Dep’T Of Health, Heather Wine

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Rhetoric Hits The Road: State Challenges To The Affordable Care Act Implementation, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

When A Door Closes, A Window Opens: Using Preemption To Challenge State Medicaid Cutbacks, Martina Brendel

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Following the Supreme Court's 2002 decision in Gonzaga University v. Doe, several circuit courts of appeal have disallowed enforcement of key Medicaid provisions under § 1983. Notably, courts have placed no similar restrictions on the enforceability of these provisions under the Supremacy Clause. This article discusses Lankford v. Sherman and Independent Living Center v. Shewry, two recent appellate decisions in which plaintiffs succeeded in preventing Medicaid cuts under a preemption theory. It then addresses the limits of the Supremacy Clause, which applies to a narrower range of state action than § 1983. It argues that Medicaid reimbursement rates are "laws" …

Due Process, Supreme Court New York County: Ramanadhan V. Wing

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Equal Protection: New York State Clinical Laboratory Ass'n Inc. V. Kaladjian

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rules & Regulations

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Due Process

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rules And Regulations

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.