Law Commons^™

To Yoder Or Not To Yoder? How The Spending Clause Holding In National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius Can Be Used To Challenge The No Child Left Behind Act, Christopher Roma

Pace Law Review

States such as California, Texas, Montana, Nebraska and Pennsylvania all have either declined to apply for waivers out of the testing, accountability, and penalty schemes of No Child Left Behind; or, have had their applications rejected by the Department of Education. This Article argues that these states would have a legitimate challenge to NCLB as unconstitutionally coercive based on the precedent of Sebelius. As discussed more in the sections that follow, not only is NCLB and Title I the largest federal funding program behind Medicaid, it also shares many of the characteristics that the opinions in Sebelius found to be …

Health Care Spending And Financial Security After The Affordable Care Act, Allison K. Hoffman

All Faculty Scholarship

Health insurance has fallen notoriously short of protecting Americans from financial insecurity caused by health care spending. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) attempted to ameliorate this shortcoming by regulating health insurance. The ACA offers a new policy vision of how health insurance will (and perhaps should) serve to promote financial security in the face of health care spending. Yet, the ACA’s policy vision applies differently among insured, based on the type of insurance they have, resulting in inconsistent types and levels of financial protection among Americans.

To examine this picture of inconsistent financial protection, this Article offers …

Equal Protection: Immigrants' Access To Healthcare And Welfare Benefits, Mel Cousins

Mel Cousins

The adoption of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (hereinafter “PRWORA”) led to considerable litigation over immigrants’ rights to welfare benefits and access to health care. The approaches adopted by different courts (both federal and state) diverged significantly based on the various statutory schemes involved as well as distinct approaches to equal protection. However, no “on point” cases have reached the United States Supreme Court, so the “correct” approach remains unclear. Following the fiscal crisis of 2008, several states moved for increased exclusion of certain immigrants residing in the country legally from state healthcare or welfare …