Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Post-Reform Medicaid Before The Court: Discordant Advocacy Reflects Conflicting Attitudes, Nicole Huberfeld
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
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 …
Amici Curiae Brief In Support Of Petitioners Urging Reversal On The Minimum Coverage Provision Issue, Department Of Health And Human Services V. State Of Florida, Wendy Parmet, Lorianne Sainsbury-Wong
Amici Curiae Brief In Support Of Petitioners Urging Reversal On The Minimum Coverage Provision Issue, Department Of Health And Human Services V. State Of Florida, Wendy Parmet, Lorianne Sainsbury-Wong
Faculty Scholarship
This amicus brief was filed before the Supreme Court in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) litigation on behalf of Health Care for All and other Massachusetts organizations that have been involved in the implementation of Massachusetts’ health 2006 health reform legislation. The brief argues that Massachusetts’ health reform law, upon which the ACA is modeled, has been very effective in expanding insurance coverage within the State, but it required substantial federal support, through a Medicaid waiver, to achieve its success. In addition the Commonwealth’s experience illustrates that the health insurance and health care markets are inherently interstate commerce and that …
Clarity And Clarification: Grable Federal Questions In The Eyes Of Their Beholders, Elizabeth Mccuskey
Clarity And Clarification: Grable Federal Questions In The Eyes Of Their Beholders, Elizabeth Mccuskey
Faculty Scholarship
Jurists and commentators have repeated for centuries the refrain that jurisdictional rules should be clear.' Behind this mantra is the idea that clearly designed jurisdictional rules should enable trial courts to apply the law more easily and therefore allow litigants to predict more accurately how trial courts will rule.2 The mantra's ultimate goal is efficiency-that trial courts not labor too long on jurisdiction and, most important, that litigants can accurately predict the correct forum and choose to spend their money litigating the merits of their claim, rather than where it will be heard. Jurisdictional clarity largely is devoted …
The First Ever (Maybe) Original Jurisdiction Standings, Jay D. Wexler, David Hatton
The First Ever (Maybe) Original Jurisdiction Standings, Jay D. Wexler, David Hatton
Faculty Scholarship
One of the more interesting clauses of the Constitution is the one that gives the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to hear lawsuits brought by one state against another state. These cases have historically made up a consistent, though small, part of the Supreme Court’s docket, but nobody has yet to investigate how the various states have fared in these suits. In this article, we analyze all of the state versus state cases decided over the past 112 years and provide the first ever (we think) official standings of how the states stack up. Minnesota is the big winner.
Obamacare's (3) Day(S) In Court, Abigail Moncrieff
Obamacare's (3) Day(S) In Court, Abigail Moncrieff
Faculty Scholarship
Before the oral arguments in late March, the vast majority of legal scholars felt confident that the Supreme Court of the United States would uphold the individual mandate against the constitutional challenge that twenty-six states have levied against it. Since the oral argument, that confidence has been severely shaken. This article asks why legal scholars were so confident before the argument and what has made us so concerned since the argument. The article posits that certain fundamental characteristics of health insurance - particularly its unusual role in steering healthcare consumption decisions, which distinguishes health insurance from standard kinds of indemnity …