Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

2012

Obamacare

Discipline
Institution
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 1 - 27 of 27

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Power To Block The Affordable Care Act: What Are The Limits?, John D. Kraemer, Lawrence O. Gostin Nov 2012

The Power To Block The Affordable Care Act: What Are The Limits?, John D. Kraemer, Lawrence O. Gostin

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Though Supreme Court upheld most parts of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Congress’ goals in enacting it could still be frustrated by non-implementation. During his campaign for president, Governor Romney promised “to issue Obamacare waivers to all fifty states.” While such blanket waivers would likely violate the Constitution’s Take Care Clause, the ACA does permit other waivers. To be lawful, however, they must meet certain requirements designed to enhance access and lower cost. A president who opposes the ACA might be able to limit its implementation by refusing to issue premium subsidies in federally operated insurance exchanges, and this ...


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

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.


It's Not A Tax (Statutorily), But It Is A Tax (Constitutionally), Steve R. Johnson Oct 2012

It's Not A Tax (Statutorily), But It Is A Tax (Constitutionally), Steve R. Johnson

Scholarly Publications

No abstract provided.


Foreword: Academic Influence On The Court, Neal K. Katyal Oct 2012

Foreword: Academic Influence On The Court, Neal K. Katyal

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

The months leading up to the Supreme Court’s blockbuster decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) were characterized by a prodigious amount of media coverage that purported to analyze how the legal challenge to Obamacare went mainstream. The nation’s major newspapers each had a prominent story describing how conservative academics, led by Professor Randy Barnett, had a long-term strategy to make the case appear credible. In the first weeks after the ACA’s passage, the storyline went, the lawsuit’s prospects of success were thought to be virtually nil. Professor (and former Solicitor General) Charles Fried stated that ...


Reframing Federalism — The Affordable Care Act (And Broccoli) In The Supreme Court, Wendy K. Mariner, George J. Annas, Leonard H. Glantz Sep 2012

Reframing Federalism — The Affordable Care Act (And Broccoli) In The Supreme Court, Wendy K. Mariner, George J. Annas, Leonard H. Glantz

Faculty Scholarship

The U.S. Supreme Court decision to uphold most of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), including the insurance-coverage requirement, allows historic reforms in the health care system to move forward. Because the justices were split four to four on whether the ACA was constitutional, Chief Justice John Roberts was able to write the lead opinion that commanded five votes for whatever outcome he determined was constitutional. The chief justice's leadership in upholding almost all of the ACA was unanticipated, as was much of his legal reasoning. It was widely assumed that the interpretation of the Commerce Clause by the ...


Perverted Liberty: How The Supreme Court’S Limitation Of The Commerce Power Undermines Our Civil-Rights Laws And Makes Us Less Free, Chad Deveaux Aug 2012

Perverted Liberty: How The Supreme Court’S Limitation Of The Commerce Power Undermines Our Civil-Rights Laws And Makes Us Less Free, Chad Deveaux

Chad DeVeaux

I argue that the Supreme Court’s limitation of Congress’s commerce power in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius undermines the edifice of federal civil-rights laws. NFIB narrowly upheld the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress’s tax power. But the Chief Justice and four dissenting Justices concluded that the mandate exceeds Congress’s commerce power. In their view, the Commerce Clause empowers the regulation of “existing commercial activity,” but does not permit Congress to “create commerce” by compelling one to engage in unwanted transactions. Because the individual mandate conscripts people to ...


The Lawlessness Of Sebelius, Gregory Magarian Aug 2012

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 ...


National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Supreme Court Of The United States Jun 2012

National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, Supreme Court Of The United States

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Litigation

No abstract provided.


Obamacare And Federalism's Tug Of War Within, Erin Ryan Jun 2012

Obamacare And Federalism's Tug Of War Within, Erin Ryan

Erin Ryan

This month, the Supreme Court will decide what some believe will be among the most important cases in the history of the institution. In the “Obamacare” cases, the Court considers whether the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) exceeds the boundaries of federal authority under the various provisions of the Constitution that establish the relationship between local and national governance. Its response will determine the fate of Congress’s efforts to grapple with the nation’s health care crisis, and perhaps other legislative responses to wicked regulatory problems like climate governance or education policy. Whichever way the gavel falls, the decisions will ...


Safeguarding The Safeguards: The Aca Litigation And The Extension Of Structural Protection To Non-Fundamental Liberties, Abigail Moncrieff May 2012

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 ...


Constitutional Forbearance, A. Christopher Bryant Mar 2012

Constitutional Forbearance, A. Christopher Bryant

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.


The Ppaca In Wonderland, David B. Kopel, Gary Lawson Jan 2012

The Ppaca In Wonderland, David B. Kopel, Gary Lawson

David B Kopel

The question whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) is “unconstitutional” is thorny, not simply because it presents intriguing issues of interpretation but also because it starkly illustrates the ambiguity that often accompanies the word “unconstitutional.” The term can be, and often is, used to mean a wide range of things, from inconsistency with the Constitution’s text to inconsistency with a set of policy preferences. In this article, we briefly explore the range of meanings that attach to the term “unconstitutional,” as well as the problem of determining the “constitutionality” of a lengthy statute when only some ...


Spending Power Bargaining After Sebelius, Erin Ryan Jan 2012

Spending Power Bargaining After Sebelius, Erin Ryan

Erin Ryan

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Affordable Care Act (ACA) decision, it’s easy to get lost in debate over the Chief Justice’s stated theory of the commerce power, or what precedential effect it will have under the Marks doctrine (given that his only supporters wrote in dissent). Still, the practical implications for existing governance is likely to be small, at least in the foreseeable future. After all, much of the debate over the individual mandate focused on how unprecedented it was: despite months of trying, nobody produced a satisfying example of this particular Congressional tool used ...


The Consequences Of Repealing Health Care Reform In Early 2013 , J. Angelo Desantis, Gabriel Ravel Jan 2012

The Consequences Of Repealing Health Care Reform In Early 2013 , J. Angelo Desantis, Gabriel Ravel

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article evaluates the consequences of an early 2013 repeal of the enacted Health Care Reform. We consider the Act's significant provisions that will have taken effect by 2013. For implemented provisions, we review their current effect on coverage, costs, and care. We then evaluate the practical consequence of the loss of those provisions. For provisions that have not yet taken effect, but will before 2013, we evaluate their projected effects in considering the consequences of repeal. Finally, for provisions that will not take effect before 2014, but where significant funds and effort will be expended prior to 2014 ...


Constitutional Forbearance, A. Christopher Bryant Jan 2012

Constitutional Forbearance, A. Christopher Bryant

Faculty Articles and Other Publications

This essay begins by developing the concept of constitutional forbearance and exploring the role it plays in the craft of good judging. This first Part also illustrates what is meant by constitutional forbearance by recovering a forgotten but illustrative example from a century ago. Part II then argues that the need for forbearance has at present become unusually acute. Finally, in Part III this essay identifies some of the qualities of the Obama care cases that make them such singular opportunities for the exercise of this much needed judicial virtue and answers some anticipated objections to thinking about the cases ...


Perverse Incentives Arising From The Tax Provisions Of Healthcare Reform: Why Further Reforms Are Needed To Prevent Avoidable Costs To Low- And Moderate-Income Workers, David Gamage Jan 2012

Perverse Incentives Arising From The Tax Provisions Of Healthcare Reform: Why Further Reforms Are Needed To Prevent Avoidable Costs To Low- And Moderate-Income Workers, David Gamage

Articles by Maurer Faculty

Called “Obamacare” by some, the Affordable Care Act (or “ACA”) is the most extensive reform to the American healthcare system since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. The ACA promises many improvements to American health care. While recognizing the importance of these improvements, this Article focuses on how the ACA’s tax provisions will create avoidable costs for low- and moderate-income workers.

This Article argues that – once key tax-related provisions of the ACA come into effect in 2014 – the ACA will create perverse incentives with respect to a number of important decisions affecting low- and moderate-income Americans, including ...


A Visual Guide To Nfib V. Sebelius, Colin Starger Jan 2012

A Visual Guide To Nfib V. Sebelius, Colin Starger

All Faculty Scholarship

Though Chief Justice Roberts ultimately provided the fifth vote upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) under the Tax Power, his was also one of five votes finding the ACA exceeded Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause.

The doctrinal basis for Roberts’ Commerce Clause analysis was hotly contested. While Roberts argued that the ACA’s purported exercise of Commerce power “finds no support in our precedent,” Justice Ginsburg accused the Chief Justice of failing to “evaluat[e] the constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision in the manner established by our precedents.”

These diametrically opposed perspectives on “precedent” might prompt observers to ...


Bad News For John Marshall, Gary Lawson, David Kopel Jan 2012

Bad News For John Marshall, Gary Lawson, David Kopel

Faculty Scholarship

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 ...


The Ppaca In Wonderland, Gary Lawson, David Kopel Jan 2012

The Ppaca In Wonderland, Gary Lawson, David Kopel

Faculty Scholarship

The question whether the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“PPACA”) is “unconstitutional” is thorny, not simply because it presents intriguing issues of interpretation but also because it starkly illustrates the ambiguity that often accompanies the word “unconstitutional.” The term can be, and often is, used to mean a wide range of things, from inconsistency with the Constitution’s text to inconsistency with a set of policy preferences. In this article, we briefly explore the range of meanings that attach to the term “unconstitutional,” as well as the problem of determining the “constitutionality” of a lengthy statute when only some ...


Cost-Benefit Federalism: Reconciling Collective Action Federalism And Libertarian Federalism In The Obamacare Litigation And Beyond, Abigail Moncrieff Jan 2012

Cost-Benefit Federalism: Reconciling Collective Action Federalism And Libertarian Federalism In The Obamacare Litigation And Beyond, Abigail Moncrieff

Faculty Scholarship

The lawsuits challenging Obamacare's individual mandate have exposed a rift in federalism theory. On one side of the divide is a view that the national government ought to intervene - and ought to be constitutionally permitted to intervene - whenever the states are "separately incompetent" to regulate. This is the view that Robert Cooter and Neil Siegel recently theorized as "collective action federalism." On the other side of the divide is a view that federalism exists for reasons other than efficiency of regulation and particularly that the Founders created the federal structure for the protection of individual liberty. According to this ...


Obamacare's (3) Day(S) In Court, Abigail Moncrieff Jan 2012

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 insurance ...


The Individual Mandate, Commerce Clause, And Supreme Court: Predicting The Court's Ruling In Hhs V. Florida, Nicholas Medling Jan 2012

The Individual Mandate, Commerce Clause, And Supreme Court: Predicting The Court's Ruling In Hhs V. Florida, Nicholas Medling

CMC Senior Theses

An analysis of the evolution of the Commerce Clause, the Justices on the Supreme Court, and the arguments presented in this case indicate that the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will be struck down. Although the Court will likely be split 5 to 4 along ideological lines, each of the justices will have a unique rationale behind their decision. Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, and Justice Kennedy were heavily targeted by both parties’ oral and written arguments because there was speculation that any one of these traditionally conservative justices could be the fifth vote ...


Constitutional Uncertainty And The Design Of Social Insurance: Reflections On The Obamacare Case, Michael J. Graetz, Jerry L. Mashaw Jan 2012

Constitutional Uncertainty And The Design Of Social Insurance: Reflections On The Obamacare Case, Michael J. Graetz, Jerry L. Mashaw

Faculty Scholarship

The gravamen of the constitutional complaint against the individual mandate is its supposed intrusion on personal freedom. But, when all was said and done, no one attacked a state government’s requirement that individuals must purchase health insurance, nor advanced any constitutional limitation on the states doing so. All we have is a holding that if the federal government wishes to do the same, it must exercise its powers to tax and spend, not its power to regulate. The ACA case then is best understood as a legal attack on the means but not the goals of the health care ...


Global Health Law Norms And The Ppaca Framework To Eliminate Health Disparities, Gwendolyn R. Majette Jan 2012

Global Health Law Norms And The Ppaca Framework To Eliminate Health Disparities, Gwendolyn R. Majette

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

This Article analyzes how PPACA constitutes framework legislation that complies with global health law norms protecting a right to health in its approach to the reduction of health care disparities for racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. Part I identifies the global health laws that impose a duty on the United States to eliminate health disparities for people of color. Part II analyzes the legislative framework that PPACA creates to protect the right to health and eliminate health care disparities. Finally, Part III concludes with my recommendations on future efforts to reduce and eliminate health care disparities for ...


What The New Deal Settled, Jamal Greene Jan 2012

What The New Deal Settled, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

This brief essay, written in conjunction with a symposium comparing the Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Obama presidencies, explores the absence of substantive due process arguments in the Affordable Care Act litigation and attendant public discourse. I argue that a substantive due process argument against the Act's individual mandate is at least as sound doctrinally as a federalism-based argument, but to the extent such arguments have been made, they have been rejected as frivolous. I suggest that this phenomenon may result in part from political obstacles to coalescing around and funding a substantive due process argument and in part from ...


What The New Deal Settled, Jamal Greene Jan 2012

What The New Deal Settled, Jamal Greene

Faculty Scholarship

Not since George H.W. Bush banned it from the menu of Air Force One did broccoli receive as much attention as during the legal and political debate over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA"). Opponents of the ACA have forcefully and repeatedly argued that if Congress has the power to require Americans to purchase health insurance as a means of reducing health care costs, then it likewise has the power to require Americans to eat broccoli. Broccoli is mentioned twelve times across the four Supreme Court opinions issued in the ACA decision – that's eleven more appearances ...


Bad News For John Marshall, David B. Kopel, Gary Lawson Dec 2011

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 ...