Law Commons^™

Section 1: Moot Court: King V. Burwell, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Hobby Lobby And Corporate Social Responsibility: A View From The Right, Alan J. Meese

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

The Medicaid Gamble, Ann Marie Marciarille

Faculty Works

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) was an unprecedented gamble. The ACA transformed Medicaid from an unevenly and underfunded program for the poor and disabled to a program to offer those priced out of commercial insurance markets government-funded health insurance similar to Medicare, the single-payer system for seniors and the disabled. In a sense, the ACA gambled that Medicaid could be more like Medicare.

The ACA, as it was transformed by the Supreme Court of the United States, became a gamble on the part of the Court that good things would follow from empowering each of the states …

Hobby Lobby, Corporate Law, And Rfra, Alan J. Meese

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

Hobby Lobby, Corporate Law, And The Theory Of The Firm: Why For-Profit Corporations Are Rfra Persons, Alan J. Meese, Nathan B. Oman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Federalism And Phantom Economic Rights In Nfib V. Sibelius, Matthew Lindsay

All Faculty Scholarship

Few predicted that the constitutional fate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would turn on Congress’ power to lay and collect taxes. Yet in NFIB v. Sebelius, the Supreme Court upheld the centerpiece of the Act — the minimum coverage provision (MCP), commonly known as the “individual mandate” — as a tax. The unexpected basis of the Court’s holding has deflected attention from what may prove to be the decision’s more constitutionally consequential feature: that a majority of the Court agreed that Congress lacked authority under the Commerce Clause to penalize people who decline to purchase health insurance. …

Essential Health Benefits And The Affordable Care Act: Law And Process, Nicholas Bagley, Helen Levy

Articles

Starting in 2014, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will require private insurance plans sold in the individual and small-group markets to cover a roster of "essential health benefits." Precisely which benefits should count as essential, however, was left to the discretion of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The matter was both important and controversial. Nonetheless, HHS announced its policy by posting on the Internet a thirteen-page bulletin stating that it would allow each state to define essential benefits for itself. On both substance and procedure, the move was surprising. The state-by-state approach departed from the uniform, federal …

Hobby Lobby And The Pathology Of Citizens United, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Four years ago, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that for-profit corporations possess a First Amendment right to make independent campaign expenditures. In so doing, the United States Supreme Court invited speculation that such corporations might possess other First Amendment rights as well. The petitioners in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius are now arguing that for-profit corporations are among the intended beneficiaries of the Free Exercise Clause and, along with the respondents in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, that they also qualify as “persons” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Neither suggestion follows inexorably from Citizens United, …

Commercial Religious Exercise: Translating Commercial Speech Doctrine To The Free Exercise Clause, Danieli Evans

Articles

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and implementing regulations require for-profit businesses with more than fifty employees to include contraceptive products in their health care coverage for employees. Throughout the country, privately held corporations and their owners challenged this requirement on the grounds that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which states that the government shall not “substantially burden” a religious practice unless the regulation is “the least restrictive means” of serving a “compelling governmental interest.” The employers argued that requiring them to include contraceptives in employees’ health coverage substantially burdened their religious opposition to using certain …

Cultural Collisions And The Limits Of The Affordable Care Act, Jasmine E. Harris

All Faculty Scholarship

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (“NFIB”) settled the central constitutional questions impeding the rollout of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”): whether the federal government’s “individual mandate” to purchase or hold health insurance and the federal government’s authority to retract existing federal dollars if states fail to expand Medicaid eligibility violate the Constitution. However, a number of residual questions persist in its wake. While most of the focus this year has been on related constitutional issues — such as religious exemptions from offering contraceptive coverage to employees — NFIB also clears the path for a discussion …

Money, Sex, And Religion--The Supreme Court's Aca Sequel, George J. Annas, Theodore Ruger, Jennifer Prah Ruger

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case is in many ways a sequel to the Court's 2012 decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The majority decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, is a setback for both the ACA's foundational goal of access to universal health care and for women's health care specifically. The Court's ruling can be viewed as a direct consequence of our fragmented health care system, in which fundamental duties are incrementally delegated and imposed on a range of public and private actors. Our incremental, fragmented, and incomplete health insurance system means …

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 …

Medicaid Expansion As Completion Of The Great Society, Nicole Huberfeld, Jessica L. Roberts

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

On the doorstep of its fiftieth anniversary, Medicaid at last could achieve the ambitious goals President Lyndon B. Johnson enunciated for the Great Society upon signing Medicare and Medicaid into law in 1965. Although the spotlight shone on Medicare at the time, Medicaid was the “sleeper program” that caught America’s neediest in its safety net—but only some of them. Medicaid’s exclusion of childless adults and other “undeserving poor” loaned an air of “otherness” to enrollees, contributing to its stigma and seeming political fragility. Now, Medicaid touches every American life. One in five Americans benefits from Medicaid’s healthcare coverage, and that …

None Of The Laws But One, Neil S. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

This Symposium contribution explores differences in how congressional Republicans responded to Medicare and how they responded to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Given the narrowness of the constitutional challenges to the ACA that congressional Republicans promoted and the many federal taxes, expenditures, and regulations that they support, this Article rejects the suggestion that today's Republicans in Congress generally possess a narrow view of the constitutional scope of federal power. The Article instead argues that congressional Republicans then and now-and the two parties in Congress today-fracture less over the constitutional expanse of congressional authority and more over the …