Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Power To Block The Affordable Care Act: What Are The Limits?, John D. Kraemer, Lawrence O. Gostin
The Power To Block The Affordable Care Act: What Are The Limits?, John D. Kraemer, Lawrence O. Gostin
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Though Supreme Court upheld most parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Congress’ goals in enacting it could still be frustrated by non-implementation. During his campaign for president, Governor Romney promised “to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states.” While such blanket waivers would likely violate the Constitution’s Take Care Clause, the ACA does permit other waivers. To be lawful, however, they must meet certain requirements designed to enhance access and lower cost. A president who opposes the ACA might be able to limit its implementation by refusing to issue premium subsidies in federally operated insurance exchanges, and this might …
It's Not A Tax (Statutorily), But It Is A Tax (Constitutionally), Steve R. Johnson
It's Not A Tax (Statutorily), But It Is A Tax (Constitutionally), Steve R. Johnson
Scholarly Publications
No abstract provided.
Foreword: Academic Influence On The Court, Neal K. Katyal
Foreword: Academic Influence On The Court, Neal K. Katyal
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
The months leading up to the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were characterized by a prodigious amount of media coverage that purported to analyze how the legal challenge to Obamacare went mainstream. The nation’s major newspapers each had a prominent story describing how conservative academics, led by Professor Randy Barnett, had a long-term strategy to make the case appear credible. In the first weeks after the ACA’s passage, the storyline went, the lawsuit’s prospects of success were thought to be virtually nil. Professor (and former Solicitor General) Charles Fried stated that he would “eat a …
Obamacare And Federalism's Tug Of War Within, Erin Ryan
Obamacare And Federalism's Tug Of War Within, Erin Ryan
Erin Ryan
This month, the Supreme Court will decide what some believe will be among the most important cases in the history of the institution. In the “Obamacare” cases, the Court considers whether the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) exceeds the boundaries of federal authority under the various provisions of the Constitution that establish the relationship between local and national governance. Its response will determine the fate of Congress’s efforts to grapple with the nation’s health care crisis, and perhaps other legislative responses to wicked regulatory problems like climate governance or education policy. Whichever way the gavel falls, the decisions will likely impact …
Constitutional Forbearance, A. Christopher Bryant
Constitutional Forbearance, A. Christopher Bryant
University of Richmond Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Ppaca In Wonderland, David B. Kopel, Gary Lawson
The Ppaca In Wonderland, David B. Kopel, Gary Lawson
David B Kopel
The question whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) is “unconstitutional” is thorny, not simply because it presents intriguing issues of interpretation but also because it starkly illustrates the ambiguity that often accompanies the word “unconstitutional.” The term can be, and often is, used to mean a wide range of things, from inconsistency with the Constitution’s text to inconsistency with a set of policy preferences. In this article, we briefly explore the range of meanings that attach to the term “unconstitutional,” as well as the problem of determining the “constitutionality” of a lengthy statute when only some portions …
Constitutional Forbearance, A. Christopher Bryant
Constitutional Forbearance, A. Christopher Bryant
Faculty Articles and Other Publications
This essay begins by developing the concept of constitutional forbearance and exploring the role it plays in the craft of good judging. This first Part also illustrates what is meant by constitutional forbearance by recovering a forgotten but illustrative example from a century ago. Part II then argues that the need for forbearance has at present become unusually acute. Finally, in Part III this essay identifies some of the qualities of the Obama care cases that make them such singular opportunities for the exercise of this much needed judicial virtue and answers some anticipated objections to thinking about the cases …
Cost-Benefit Federalism: Reconciling Collective Action Federalism And Libertarian Federalism In The Obamacare Litigation And Beyond, Abigail R. Moncrieff
Cost-Benefit Federalism: Reconciling Collective Action Federalism And Libertarian Federalism In The Obamacare Litigation And Beyond, Abigail R. Moncrieff
Law Faculty Articles and Essays
This Article argues that most commentators have exaggerated all three of the relevant issues with Obamacare: its efficiency gains, its liberty costs, and its departure from the status quo ante's federalist balance. The collective action problem with state insurance regulation is not as bad as scholars of collective action federalism have argued; the liberty implications of the individual mandate are not as extreme as scholars of libertarian federalism have argued; and the shift from state to national power is not as significant as the litigants and courts have argued. Although I do not make the strong claim that Obamacare reaches …
The Individual Mandate, Commerce Clause, And Supreme Court: Predicting The Court's Ruling In Hhs V. Florida, Nicholas Medling
The Individual Mandate, Commerce Clause, And Supreme Court: Predicting The Court's Ruling In Hhs V. Florida, Nicholas Medling
CMC Senior Theses
An analysis of the evolution of the Commerce Clause, the Justices on the Supreme Court, and the arguments presented in this case indicate that the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will be struck down. Although the Court will likely be split 5 to 4 along ideological lines, each of the justices will have a unique rationale behind their decision. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy were heavily targeted by both parties’ oral and written arguments because there was speculation that any one of these traditionally conservative justices could be the fifth vote …
The Ppaca In Wonderland, Gary S. Lawson, David Kopel
The Ppaca In Wonderland, Gary S. Lawson, David Kopel
Faculty Scholarship
The question whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) is “unconstitutional” is thorny, not simply because it presents intriguing issues of interpretation but also because it starkly illustrates the ambiguity that often accompanies the word “unconstitutional.” The term can be, and often is, used to mean a wide range of things, from inconsistency with the Constitution’s text to inconsistency with a set of policy preferences. In this article, we briefly explore the range of meanings that attach to the term “unconstitutional,” as well as the problem of determining the “constitutionality” of a lengthy statute when only some portions …
What The New Deal Settled, Jamal Greene
What The New Deal Settled, Jamal Greene
Faculty Scholarship
Not since George H.W. Bush banned it from the menu of Air Force One did broccoli receive as much attention as during the legal and political debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA"). Opponents of the ACA have forcefully and repeatedly argued that if Congress has the power to require Americans to purchase health insurance as a means of reducing health care costs, then it likewise has the power to require Americans to eat broccoli. Broccoli is mentioned twelve times across the four Supreme Court opinions issued in the ACA decision – that's eleven more appearances than …
Bad News For John Marshall, David B. Kopel, Gary Lawson
Bad News For John Marshall, David B. Kopel, Gary Lawson
David B Kopel
In Bad News for Professor Koppelman: The Incidental Unconstitutionality of the Individual Mandate, we demonstrated that the individual mandate’s forced participation in commercial transactions cannot be justified under the Necessary and Proper Clause as the Clause was interpreted in McCulloch v. Maryland. Professor Andrew Koppelman’s response, Bad News for Everybody, wrongly conflates that argument with a wide range of interpretative and substantive positions that are not logically entailed by taking seriously the requirement that laws enacted under the Necessary and Proper Clause must be incidental to an enumerated power. His response is thus largely unresponsive to our actual arguments.