Law Commons^™

National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), Elizabeth Weeks, Mary Ann Chirba, Alice A. Noble

Scholarly Works

In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, decided in 2012, twenty-six states as well as private individuals and an organization of independent businesses challenged the constitutionality of two key components of the Affordable Care Act. The Court upheld the individual mandate but converted the Medicaid eligibility expansion from mandatory to optional for states. Elizabeth Weeks’ feminist rewrite breaks down the public law-private law distinction to get beyond the traditional view of health insurance as a commercial product providing individual financial protection against risk and instead to view it as effecting a risk pool premised on cross-subsidization of the health-care …

Crafting A Narrative For The Red State Option, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

This Article examines the current state of play following the Supreme Court's decision in NFIB v. Sebelius to allow states the option of expanding their Medicaid programs in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Holding that mandatory expansion was unconstitutionally coercive, the Court created the Red State Option. Despite the enormously generous federal financial support for Medicaid expansion, close to half of the states have declined. At the same time, at least eight Republican-led states have crossed Tea Party lines to accept federal funding for expansion. Drawing lessons from these states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Michigan, and …

Plunging Into Endless Difficulties: Medicaid And Coercion In National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard, Nicole Huberfield, Kevin Outterson

Scholarly Works

Of the four discrete questions before the Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, the Medicaid expansion held the greatest potential for destabilization from both a statutory and a constitutional perspective. As authors of an amicus brief supporting the Medicaid expansion, and scholars with expertise in health law who have been cited by the Court, we show in this article why NFIB is likely to fulfill that promise.

For the first time in its history, the Court held federal legislation based upon the spending power to be unconstitutionally coercive. Chief Justice Roberts’ plurality (joined for future voting purposes …

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

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Cooperative Federalism And Healthcare Reform: The Medicare Part D 'Clawback' Example, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

This symposium article recounts recent litigation by several states over a provision of the Medicare Modernization Act Part D prescription drug benefit: The clawback, which requires states to pay the a potentially substantial portion of new federal program. I then examine the unique federalism implications of the clawback for ongoing state and federal health reform initiatives.

In spring 2006, several states petitioned the United States Supreme Court for original jurisdiction to hear a challenge to one provision of the new Medicare Part D prescription drug law. The federal government, while taking over prescription drug coverage for dually eligible beneficiaries, required …