Law Commons^™

Let's Talk: Judicial Decisions At Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Anna Batta, Paul M. Collins, Jr., Tom Miles, Lori A. Ringhand

Scholarly Works

An investigation of Supreme Court Confirmation hearings reveals many queries posed to nominees reference specific court cases, especially recent decisions, and with questioning often divided along partisan lines. These findings indicate that the hearings are more substantive than is commonly assumed.

Post-Reform Medicaid Before The Court: Discordant Advocacy Reflects Conflicting Attitudes, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court will decide two major Medicaid cases this term that raise major questions about the program and the tensions it creates between the federal government and the states. The Court heard oral arguments on October 3d in Douglas v. Independent Living Center, a dispute between California and its Medicaid providers regarding reimbursement cuts due to California’s budget crisis. The Medicaid providers argue that these proposed cuts are so extreme as to violate federal law and thus the Supremacy Clause. Their contention hinges on the Equal Access Provision of the Medicaid Act, which commands states to pay healthcare providers …

Going Rogue: Stop The Beach Renourishment As An Object Of Morbid Fascination, Mary Doyle, Stephen J. Schnably

Articles

Scholarly response to the Supreme Court's decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection has focused on the plurality's strong advocacy of a judicial takings doctrine. We take a different tack. While the concept of judicial takings is worthy of serious attention, it is wrong to treat the plurality opinion as an ordinary object of analysis. It is, instead, the emanation of a Court going rogue.

Three basic symptoms of the pathology stand out. First, sleight of hand. The plurality opinion purports to be about an institutional issue-can a state court commit a taking? - …

Twombly’S Seismic Disturbances, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

The Supreme Court's decision in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), has had a seismic impact on federal civil litigation. We all thought the notice pleading concept introduced un­der the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure had substantially eased the plaintiff's burden at the pleading stage. The Supreme Court in Twombly said "yes, but," and emphasized that notice pleading was never intended to dispense entirely with the need to plead facts demonstrating a right to relief. In short, facts matter: Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a statement of circumstances, events, and …

Obligatory Health, Noa Ben-Asher

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court will soon rule on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed in March 2010. Courts thus far are divided on the question whether Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to impose the Act's "Individual Mandate" to purchase health insurance. At this moment, the public and legal debate can benefit from a clearer understanding of the underlying rights claims. This Article offers two principal contributions. First, the Article argues that, while the constitutional question technically turns on the interpretation of congressional power under the Commerce Clause, underlying these debates is a tension between …

Aclu Seeks Supreme Court Review In Windsor Doma Suit, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.