Law Commons^™

Continuous Reproductive Surveillance, Michael Ulrich, Leah R. Fowler

Faculty Scholarship

The Dobbs opinion emphasizes that the state’s interest in the fetus extends to “all stages of development.” This essay briefly explores whether state legislators, agencies, and courts could use the “all stages of development” language to expand reproductive surveillance by using novel developments in consumer health technologies to augment those efforts.

Biden V. Nebraska: The New State Standing And The (Old) Purposive Major Questions Doctrine, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

Chief Justice Roberts’s majority opinion in Biden v. Nebraska does not sufficiently explain how Missouri has standing under established Article III doctrine, nor how the Court approaches the major questions doctrine as a method of statutory interpretation. Clarification can come from other opinions, even other cases entirely, in which Justice’s counterarguments are suggestive of the real arguments underlying the decisions.

MOHELA may have faced a concrete injury from the student debt waiver, but there was no evidence that Missouri would – and the majority had no answer for how Missouri had standing without an injury. A debate over special state …

American Public Health Federalism And The Response To The Covid-19 Pandemic, Nicole Huberfeld, Sarah Gordon, David K. Jones

Faculty Scholarship

This chapter is part of an edited volume studying and comparing federalist government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. The chapter first briefly provides an overview of the American public health emergency framework and highlights key leadership challenges that occurred at federal and state levels throughout the first year of the pandemic. Then the chapter examines decentralized responsibility in American social programs and states’ prior policy choices to understand how long-term choices affected short-term emergency response. Finally, the chapter explores long-term ramifications and solutions to the governance difficulties the pandemic has highlighted.

Have The Aca’S Exchanges Succeeded? It’S Complicated, Nicole Huberfeld, David Jones, Sarah Gordon

Faculty Scholarship

The fight over health insurance exchanges epitomizes the rapid evolution of health reform politics in the decade since the passage of the Affordable Care Act. The ACA's drafters did not expect the exchanges to be contentious; they would expand private insurance coverage to low- and middle-income individuals who were increasingly unable to obtain employer-sponsored health insurance. Yet, exchanges became one of the primary fronts in the war over Obamacare. Have the exchanges been successful? The answer is not straightforward and requires a historical perspective through a federalism lens. What the ACA has accomplished has depended largely on whether states were …

What Federalism Means For The Us Response To Coronavirus Disease 2019, Sarah H. Gordon, Nicole Huberfeld, David K. Jones

Faculty Scholarship

The rapid spread of novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) across the United States has been met with a decentralized and piecemeal response led primarily by governors, mayors, and local health departments. This disjointed response is no accident. Federalism, or the division of power between a national government and states, is a fundamental feature of US public health authority.¹ In this pandemic, US public health federalism assures that the coronavirus response depends on zip code. A global pandemic has no respect for geographic boundaries, laying bare the weaknesses of federalism in the face of a crisis.

Federalism Complicates The Response To The Covid-19 Health And Economic Crisis: What Can Be Done?, Nicole Huberfeld, Sarah Gordon, David K. Jones

Faculty Scholarship

Federalism has complicated the US response to the novel coronavirus. States’ actions to address the pandemic have varied widely, and federal and state officials have provided conflicting messages. This fragmented approach has cost time and lives. Federalism will shape the long-term health and economic impacts of COVID-19, including plans for the future, for at least two reasons: First, federalism exacerbates inequities, as some states have a history of underinvesting in social programs, especially in certain communities. Second, many of the states with the deepest needs are poorly equipped to respond to emergencies due to low taxes and distrust of government, …

Is Medicare For All The Answer? Assessing The Health Reform Gestalt As The Aca Turns 10, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

As presidential candidates debate health reform, the expression “Medicare for All” (“M4A”) is on repeat, yet few appear to understand precisely what Medicare is or what M4A would mean. Even more striking is that Americans are vigorously debating health reform when the ACA – President Obama’s signature legislation and a health reform effort on a scale not seen in decades – turns 10 on March 23.

The ACA pioneered universal coverage, but it also ratcheted up health care complexity by building new scaffolding around an old foundation. This fragmented landscape has been exacerbated by a crazy quilt of implementation crafted …

Epilogue: Health Care, Federalism, And Democratic Values, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

Is the United States experiencing a “crisis of democracy in health care”? This symposium's central question can only begin to be addressed here. The answer depends, in part, on where we look and how we measure democracy.

Democracy is a complex ideal often said to be promoted by federalism. In health care, each level of government exercises power because federalism is a default choice in health reform efforts. This default enables state governments and the federal government to create, enforce, and adjudicate health law and policy - democratic operations at the national and the subnational levels. But on each democratic …

Chapter 8: Is The Preemption Clause Of Erisa Unconstitutional?, Andrew Morrison, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

The authors suggest plaintiffs and/or state attorneys general should consider taking Justice Clarence Thomas up on his effective suggestion, in the 2016 Supreme Court case of Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance, to put before the federal courts the question whether the preemption clause of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) represented a valid exercise of federal power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. ERISA’s exceptionally broad statement of preemption does in fact seem to have unconstitutional reach: It purports to preempt “any and all” state laws that simply “relate to” employee benefits, a formulation without logical …

Federalism In Health Care Reform, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

Throughout American history, protecting states’ rights within federal health reform laws has served purposes other than the needs of the poor, such as excluding those deemed undeserving of assistance, the “able-bodied.” This chapter explores the role of federalism in health reform, paying particular attention to the importance of universality in programs meant to aid the poor, such as Medicaid. American federalism is dynamic, involving separate state negotiations with the federal government rather than the fixed dual sovereignty imagined by the Supreme Court. Such negotiations lead to variability, which in health care may lower the baseline for reform-resistant states and thus …

What Is Federalism In Health Care For?, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The Affordable Care Act offers a window on modern American federalism—and modern American nationalism—in action. The ACA’s federalism is defined not by separation between state and federal, but rather by a national structure that invites state-led implementation. As it turns out, that structure was only a starting point for a remarkably dynamic and adaptive implementation process that has generated new state-federal arrangements. States move back and forth between different structural models vis-à-vis the federal government; internal state politics produce different state choices; states copy, compete, and cooperate with each other; and negotiation with federal counterparts is a near-constant. These characteristics …

The New Health Care Federalism On The Ground, Nicole Huberfeld, Abbe Gluck

Faculty Scholarship

This essay, part of a symposium investigating methods of empirically evaluating health policy, focuses on American health care federalism, the relationship between the federal and state governments in the realm of health care policy and regulation. We describe the results of a five year study of the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) from 2012-2017. Our study focused on two key pillars of the ACA, which happen to be its most state-centered — expansion of Medicaid and the implementation of health insurance exchanges — and sheds light on federalism in the modern era of nationally-enacted health …

The New Health Care Federalism On The Ground, Nicole Huberfeld, Abbe Gluck

Faculty Scholarship

This essay, part of a symposium investigating methods of empirically evaluating health policy, focuses on American health care federalism, the relationship between the federal and state governments in the realm of health care policy and regulation. We describe the results of a five year study of the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) from 2012-2017. Our study focused on two key pillars of the ACA, which happen to be its most state-centered — expansion of Medicaid and the implementation of health insurance exchanges — and sheds light on federalism in the modern era of nationally-enacted health …

The Body Politic: Federalism As Feminism In Health Reform, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

This essay illuminates how modern health law has been mainstreaming feminism under the auspices of health equity and social determinants research. Feminism shares with public health and health policy both the empirical impulse to identify inequality and the normative value of pursing equity in treatment. Using the Affordable Care Act's federal health insurance reforms as a case study of health equity in action, the essay exposes the feminist undercurrents of health insurance reform and the impulse toward mutuality in a body politic. The essay concludes by revisiting-from a feminist perspective-scholars' arguments that equity in health insurance is essential for human …

Agency Imprimatur & Health Reform Preemption, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

At this moment, there exists nearly unanimous agreement that the American health care system requires reform, but also vehement disagreements over what form regulation should take and who should be in charge of regulating—state or federal authorities. Preemption doctrine typically referees disputes between federal and state regulatory efforts, but it also exacerbates them. There exists nearly as unanimous opinion that preemption doctrine in health law is a mess. This Article identifies an inventive structure that may help defuse some preemption problems in health reform.

The Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual and employer mandates, health insurance exchanges, and insurance coverage standards …

Body Of Preemption: Health Law Traditions And The Presumption Against Preemption, Elizabeth Mccuskey

Faculty Scholarship

Preemption plays a prominent role in health law, establishing the contours of coexistence for federal and state regulatory authorities over health topics as varied as medical malpractice, insurance coverage, drug safety, and privacy. When courts adjudicate crucial preemption questions, they must divine Congress's intent by applying substantive canons of statutory interpretation, including presumptions against preemption.

This Article makes three main contributions to health law and preemption doctrine. First, it identifies a variant of the presumption against preemption that applies to health laws-referred to throughout as the "tradition presumption." Unlike the general presumption against preemption on federalism grounds, courts base this …

The Sad, Quiet Death Of Missouri V. Holland: How Bond Hobbled The Treaty Power, Robert D. Sloane, Michael Glennon

Faculty Scholarship

Many anticipated that Bond v. United States (2014) would confirm or overrule Justice Holmes’s canonical decision in Missouri v. Holland (1920). Bond is now considered to have done neither; rather, it purportedly elided the constitutional issue by applying the canon of constitutional avoidance to the treaty’s implementing legislation, thus resolving Bond on statutory grounds alone and leaving Holland’s validity for another day. We argue to the contrary that Bond eviscerated Holland. Chief Justice Roberts proceeded from the premise that “the statute — unlike the [treaty] — must be read consistent with principles of federalism inherent in our constitutional structure.” This …

The Civil Rights Act Of 1964 And 'Legislating Morality': On Conscience, Prejudice, And Whether 'Stateways' Can Change 'Folkways', Linda C. Mcclain

Faculty Scholarship

Influential studies, from the 1940s and 1950s, of the problem of prejudice and how to remedy it challenged the famous assertion of nineteenth-century sociologist William Graham Sumner that “stateways don’t change folkways,” and its modern counterparts, “you cannot legislate against prejudice” or “you cannot legislate morality.” Social scientists countered that, although people might initially protest, they would welcome a federal antidiscrimination law that aligned with conscience and closed the gap between American ideals and prejudice, creating new “folkways.” Using examples from the contexts of public accommodations, education, and employment, this Article examines similar arguments made about conscience and “legislating morality” …

Federalism, Marriage, And Heather Gerken's Mad Genius, Kristin Collins

Faculty Scholarship

In her characteristically astute and engaging essay, Professor Heather Gerken offers a sensitive and sympathetic reading of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in United States v. Windsor.¹ Her core claim is that Windsor—and the transformation of political and legal support for same-sex marriage in the United States—demonstrate how “federalism and rights work together to promote change” and, in particular, how federalism furthers the equality and liberty values of the Fourteenth Amendment.² This is a natural line of argument for Gerken to develop with respect to Windsor, as she has produced an incredible body of scholarship dedicated to what …

Will Uncooperative Federalism Survive Nfib?, Abigail Moncrieff, Jonathan Dinerstein

Faculty Scholarship

In October Term 2012, the Supreme Court decided two cases that are fundamentally at odds: NFIB v. Sebelius and Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California. In NFIB, the Court held that the federal government, at least under some circumstances, may not use the threat of reduced funding in cooperative federalism programs to require states to comply with federal statutory requirements. In Douglas, however, the Court indicated that private litigants should sue federal agencies under the Administrative Procedure Act if those agencies refuse to enforce federal statutory requirements against the states. The problem is that the withdrawal of funding …

The Universality Of Medicaid At Fifty, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

This essay, written for the Yale Law School symposium on The Law of Medicare and Medicaid at 50, explores how the law of Medicaid after the ACA creates a meaningful principle of universalism by shifting from fragmentation and exclusivity to universality and inclusivity. The universality principle provides a new trajectory for all of American health care, one that is not based on individual qualities that are unrelated to medical care but rather grounded in non-judgmental principles of unification and equalization (if not outright solidarity). This essay examines the ACA's legislative reformation, which led to universality, and its quantifiable effects. The …

Jefferson's Constitutions, Gerald F. Leonard

Faculty Scholarship

Between 1787 and 1840, the Constitution gained a far more democratic meaning than it had had at the Founding, and Thomas Jefferson was a key figure in the process of democratization. But, while more democratic in inclination than many of the Framers, he fell far short of the radically democratic constitutionalism of his most important acolytes, Martin Van Buren and Andrew Jackson. This chapter of Constitutions and the Classics explains that Jefferson was actually much less attached to democracy and more to law as the heart of the republican Constitution. Compared to the 1830s founders of the nation’s democratic Constitution, …

Competitive Federalism: Five Clarifying Questions, Larry Yackle

Faculty Scholarship

Before I looked into the two fine books we are reviewing here,1 I would have said that arguments from federalism are typically fraudulent, neither more nor less than deliberate attempts to cloud the discussion of real issues. Now that I have read what Sotirios A. Barber and Michael S. Greve have written, I am largely confirmed in my prejudices. But my suspicions about federalism contentions have been shaken a bit – enough to ask some questions of Professor Greve, whose answers might persuade me that there is some good in this federalism business, after all. I doubt it, but I …

Patent Law Federalism, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

Most lawsuits arising under federal law can be filed in either state or federal court. Patent suits, however, may be filed only in federal court. Why do patent cases receive exceptional treatment? The usual answer is that federal courts, unlike state courts, provide uniformity and expertise in patent matters. This Article analyzes whether exclusive jurisdiction actually serves those policy aims and concludes that the uniformity-expertise rationale is overstated. If exclusive federal patent jurisdiction is to be justified, attention must also be given to pragmatic considerations, such as the respective quality of state and federal trial courts, the courts’ ability to …

Dynamic Expansion, Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

Nearly one in four Americans will have medical care and costs covered by the Medicaid program when it has been expanded pursuant to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the ACA). National media outlets have been reporting that only about half of the states are participating in the Medicaid expansion; if the reports were true, millions of Americans would be left without insurance coverage, and many of the nation’s medically fragile citizens would not have access to consistent healthcare. Contrary to these reports, most states will participate in the Medicaid expansion in the near future. This claim is not …

The Federal Circuit As A Federal Court, Paul Gugliuzza

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over patent appeals and, as a consequence, the last word on many legal issues important to innovation policy. This Article shows how the Federal Circuit augments its already significant power by impeding other government institutions from influencing the patent system. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has shaped patent-law doctrine, along with rules of jurisdiction, procedure, and administrative law, to preserve and expand the court’s power in four interinstitutional relationships: the court’s federalism relationship with state courts, its separation of powers relationship with the executive and legislative branches, its vertical …

Heed Not The Umpire (Justice Ginsburg Called Nfib), Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

A bad reading of the facts in NFIB v. Sebelius has led to new limitations on Congress’s Commerce, Necessary and Proper, and Spending Clause powers. The decision appeared to use healthcare as a vehicle for constitutional change, leading to interpretive gymnastics that invite further litigation. This essay highlights the factual errors in Chief Justice Roberts’s and the joint dissent’s opinions and explains why Justice Ginsburg’s more fact-attuned opinion was the correct analysis of the case.

Where There Is A Right, There Must Be A Remedy (Even In Medicaid), Nicole Huberfeld

Faculty Scholarship

The anticipated growth of Medicaid under the ACA will likely aggravate an ongoing dispute surrounding private enforcement of the Medicaid Act. The Medicaid Act does not provide a private right of action except when a person who is eligible for Medicaid is denied entry into the program. Nevertheless, historically, both Medicaid providers and beneficiaries have been able to protect their rights through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which allows individuals to seek redress against states in federal court for violations of statutory or constitutional rights, or through the Supremacy Clause, which prevents states from enacting laws that violate superseding federal laws. …

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 …

Safeguarding The Safeguards: The Aca Litigation And The Extension Of Structural Protection To Non-Fundamental Liberties, Abigail Moncrieff

Faculty Scholarship

As the lawsuits challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) have evolved, one feature of the litigation has proven especially rankling to the legal academy: the incorporation of substantive libertarian concerns into structural federalism analysis. The breadth and depth of scholarly criticism on this point is surprising, however, given that judges today frequently choose indirect methods for protecting substantive constitutional values, including structural and process-based methods of the kinds at issue in the ACA litigation. Indeed, indirection in the protection of constitutional liberties is a well-known and well-theorized strategy, which one scholar recently termed “semisubstantive review” and another …