Law Commons^™

Improving Outcomes In Child Poverty And Wellness In Appalachia In The "New Normal" Era: Infusing Empathy Into Law, Jill C. Engle

Jill Engle

No abstract provided.

Intellectual Property And Public Health – A White Paper, Ryan G. Vacca, Jim Chen, Jay Dratler Jr., Tom Folsom, Timothy Hall, Yaniv Heled, Frank Pasquale, Elizabeth Reilly, Jeff Samuels, Kathy Strandburg, Kara Swanson, Andrew Torrance, Katharine Van Tassel

Katharine Van Tassel

On October 26, 2012, the University of Akron School of Law’s Center for Intellectual Property and Technology hosted its Sixth Annual IP Scholars Forum. In attendance were thirteen legal scholars with expertise and an interest in IP and public health who met to discuss problems and potential solutions at the intersection of these fields. This report summarizes this discussion by describing the problems raised, areas of agreement and disagreement between the participants, suggestions and solutions made by participants and the subsequent evaluations of these suggestions and solutions.

Led by the moderator, participants at the Forum focused generally on three broad …

How King V. Burwell Creates Tax Problems For Consumers And What The Treasury Can Do About It, Andy Grewal

Andy Grewal

Commentators have expressed concern that a government loss in King v. Burwell, which addresses whether taxpayers can enjoy tax credits for policies purchased on federal health care exchanges, will lead to a "death spiral" during future enrollment seasons.

However, this discussion threatens to mask the potential tax problems facing persons who purchase policies this enrollment season. As this short article explains, purchasers may be faced with a surprising tax bill when they complete their 2015 tax returns. Additionally, the government has argued that it can protect customers from surprise tax bills, but it's authority to do so is far from …

Lucky 13: A Review Of The U.S. Supreme Court Term 2014-15, Miller W. Shealy Jr.

Miller W. Shealy Jr.

No abstract provided.

Corporate Law After Hobby Lobby, Lyman P. Q. Johnson, David K. Millon

Lyman P. Q. Johnson

We evaluate the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial decision in the Hobby Lobby case from the perspective of state corporate law. We argue that the Court is correct in holding that corporate law does not mandate that business corporations limit themselves to pursuit of profit. Rather, state law allows incorporation for any lawful purpose. We elaborate on this important point and also explain what it means for a corporation to “exercise religion.” In addition, we address the larger implications of the Court’s analysis for an accurate understanding both of state law’s essentially agnostic stance on the question of corporate purpose and …

Corporate Law After Hobby Lobby, Lyman P. Q. Johnson, David K. Millon

David K. Millon

We evaluate the U.S. Supreme Court’s controversial decision in the Hobby Lobby case from the perspective of state corporate law. We argue that the Court is correct in holding that corporate law does not mandate that business corporations limit themselves to pursuit of profit. Rather, state law allows incorporation for any lawful purpose. We elaborate on this important point and also explain what it means for a corporation to “exercise religion.” In addition, we address the larger implications of the Court’s analysis for an accurate understanding both of state law’s essentially agnostic stance on the question of corporate purpose and …

Comment On The Proposed Definition Of “Eligible Organization” For Purposes Of Coverage Of Certain Preventative Services Under The Affordable Care Act, Lyman P. Q. Johnson, David K. Millon, Stephen M. Bainbridge, Ronald J. Colombo, Brett Mcdonnell, Alan J. Meese, Nathan B. Oman

Lyman P. Q. Johnson

In late August 2014, after suffering a defeat in the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision when the Court held that business corporations are “persons” that can “exercise religion,” the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) proposed new rules defining “eligible organizations.” Purportedly designed to accommodate the Hobby Lobby ruling, the proposed rules do not comport with the reasoning of that important decision and they unjustifiably seek to permit only a small group of business corporations to be exempt from providing contraceptive coverage on religious grounds. This comment letter to the HHS about its proposed rules makes several theoretical and …

Comment On The Proposed Definition Of “Eligible Organization” For Purposes Of Coverage Of Certain Preventative Services Under The Affordable Care Act, Lyman P. Q. Johnson, David K. Millon, Stephen M. Bainbridge, Ronald J. Colombo, Brett Mcdonnell, Alan J. Meese, Nathan B. Oman

David K. Millon

In late August 2014, after suffering a defeat in the Supreme Court Hobby Lobby decision when the Court held that business corporations are “persons” that can “exercise religion,” the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) proposed new rules defining “eligible organizations.” Purportedly designed to accommodate the Hobby Lobby ruling, the proposed rules do not comport with the reasoning of that important decision and they unjustifiably seek to permit only a small group of business corporations to be exempt from providing contraceptive coverage on religious grounds. This comment letter to the HHS about its proposed rules makes several theoretical and …

Rick Garnett Was Quoted In • The Columbus Dispatch, Obamacare, Religion Are Focus Of Arguments Today Before Justices, March 25, Richard Garnett

Richard W Garnett

Rick Garnett was quoted in The Columbus Dispatch, Obamacare, religion are focus of arguments today before justices, March 25

“In the real world, the number of corporations able to invoke (a religious exemption) is especially small,” said Richard Garnett, a professor of law at the University of Notre Dame.

Healthy, Wealthy, And Wise: How Corporate Power Shaped The Affordable Care Act, Kevin A. Young, Michael Schwartz

Kevin Young

No abstract provided.

The Obamacare Opportunity: Implementing The Affordable Care Act To Improve Health, Reduce Hardship, And Grow The Economy For All Californians, Jeffrey Selbin, Ann O'Leary, Theresa Cheng, Stephanie Campos, Katherine Adamides, Rey Fuentes

Jeffrey Selbin

Chief Justice Roberts' Individual Mandate: The Lawless Medicine Of Nfib V. Sebelius, Gregory Magarian

Gregory P. Magarian

After the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius held nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional, praise rained down on Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice’s lead opinion broke with his usual conservative allies on the Court by upholding the Act’s individual mandate under the Taxing Clause. Numerous academic and popular commentators have lauded the Chief Justice for his political courage and institutional pragmatism. In this essay, Professor Magarian challenges the heroic narrative surrounding the Chief Justice’s opinion. The essay contends that the opinion is, in two distinct senses, fundamentally …

Chief Justice John “Marshall” Roberts – How The Chief Justice’S Majority Opinion Upholding The Federal Patient Protection And Affordable Care Act Of 2010 Evokes Chief Justice Marshall’S Decision In Marbury V. Madison, Mohamed Akram Faizer

Akram Faizer

The United States Supreme Court sustained the Federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 based on Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 132 S. Ct. 2566 (2012). The Chief Justice’s decision to uphold the Act obviated a potentially harmful confrontation with the Obama Administration in advance of the November 2012 general election. However, the decision accomplished more than merely avoid a confrontation with the executive branch. Rather, the Chief Justice’s rationale for sustaining the Act under the Taxing and Spending Power and not the Commerce Clause is a …

Intellectual Property And Public Health – A White Paper, Ryan G. Vacca, Jim Chen, Jay Dratler Jr., Tom Folsom, Timothy Hall, Yaniv Heled, Frank Pasquale, Elizabeth Reilly, Jeff Samuels, Kathy Strandburg, Kara Swanson, Andrew Torrance, Katharine Van Tassel

Frank A. Pasquale

On October 26, 2012, the University of Akron School of Law’s Center for Intellectual Property and Technology hosted its Sixth Annual IP Scholars Forum. In attendance were thirteen legal scholars with expertise and an interest in IP and public health who met to discuss problems and potential solutions at the intersection of these fields. This report summarizes this discussion by describing the problems raised, areas of agreement and disagreement between the participants, suggestions and solutions made by participants and the subsequent evaluations of these suggestions and solutions.

Led by the moderator, participants at the Forum focused generally on three broad …

Intellectual Property And Public Health – A White Paper, Ryan G. Vacca, Jim Chen, Jay Dratler Jr., Tom Folsom, Timothy Hall, Yaniv Heled, Frank Pasquale, Elizabeth Reilly, Jeff Samuels, Kathy Strandburg, Kara Swanson, Andrew Torrance, Katharine Van Tassel

Katharine Van Tassel

On October 26, 2012, the University of Akron School of Law’s Center for Intellectual Property and Technology hosted its Sixth Annual IP Scholars Forum. In attendance were thirteen legal scholars with expertise and an interest in IP and public health who met to discuss problems and potential solutions at the intersection of these fields. This report summarizes this discussion by describing the problems raised, areas of agreement and disagreement between the participants, suggestions and solutions made by participants and the subsequent evaluations of these suggestions and solutions.

Led by the moderator, participants at the Forum focused generally on three broad …

Intellectual Property And Public Health – A White Paper, Ryan G. Vacca, Jim Chen, Jay Dratler Jr., Tom Folsom, Timothy Hall, Yaniv Heled, Frank Pasquale, Elizabeth Reilly, Jeff Samuels, Kathy Strandburg, Kara Swanson, Andrew Torrance, Katharine Van Tassel

Yaniv Heled

On October 26, 2012, the University of Akron School of Law’s Center for Intellectual Property and Technology hosted its Sixth Annual IP Scholars Forum. In attendance were thirteen legal scholars with expertise and an interest in IP and public health who met to discuss problems and potential solutions at the intersection of these fields. This report summarizes this discussion by describing the problems raised, areas of agreement and disagreement between the participants, suggestions and solutions made by participants and the subsequent evaluations of these suggestions and solutions.

Led by the moderator, participants at the Forum focused generally on three broad …

Supreme Prescriptions America, Take Your Medicine - A Review Of The 2011-2012 U.S. Supreme Court Term, Miller W. Shealy Jr.

Miller W. Shealy Jr.

No abstract provided.

The Lawlessness Of Sebelius, Gregory Magarian

Gregory P. Magarian

After the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius held nearly all of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional, praise rained down on Chief Justice John Roberts. The Chief Justice’s lead opinion broke with his usual conservative allies on the Court by upholding the Act’s individual mandate as a valid enactment under the Taxing Clause. Numerous commentators have lauded the Chief Justice for his courage and pragmatism. In this essay, Professor Magarian challenges the heroic narrative surrounding the Chief Justice’s opinion. He contends that the opinion is, in two senses, fundamentally lawless. First, the …

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.