Law Commons^™

National Federation Of Independent Business V. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), Elizabeth Weeks, Mary Ann Chirba, Alice A. Noble

Scholarly Works

In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, decided in 2012, twenty-six states as well as private individuals and an organization of independent businesses challenged the constitutionality of two key components of the Affordable Care Act. The Court upheld the individual mandate but converted the Medicaid eligibility expansion from mandatory to optional for states. Elizabeth Weeks’ feminist rewrite breaks down the public law-private law distinction to get beyond the traditional view of health insurance as a commercial product providing individual financial protection against risk and instead to view it as effecting a risk pool premised on cross-subsidization of the health-care …

Crafting A Narrative For The Red State Option, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

This Article examines the current state of play following the Supreme Court's decision in NFIB v. Sebelius to allow states the option of expanding their Medicaid programs in accordance with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Holding that mandatory expansion was unconstitutionally coercive, the Court created the Red State Option. Despite the enormously generous federal financial support for Medicaid expansion, close to half of the states have declined. At the same time, at least eight Republican-led states have crossed Tea Party lines to accept federal funding for expansion. Drawing lessons from these states, including Arkansas, Arizona, Michigan, and …

A Response To Beyond Separation: Professor Copeland’S Ambitious Proposal For “Integrative” Federalism, Elizabeth Weeks

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Affordable Care Act Litigation: The Standing Paradox, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) litigation presents a standing paradox. In the current posture, it appears that states lack standing to challenge the federal law on behalf of individuals, while individuals possess standing to challenge the federal law on behalf of states. This Article contends that there is no principled reason for this asymmetry and argues that standing doctrine should apply as liberally to states as individuals, assuming states allege the constitutional minimum requirements for standing and especially where the legal challenge turns on allocation of power between the federal government and states. The Article proceeds by …

The Rhetoric Hits The Road: State Resistance To Affordable Care Act Implementation, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

This paper provides an update and reanalysis of my previously published article, Rhetorical Federalism: The Value of State-Based Dissent to Federal Health Reform, 93 Hofstra Law Review 111 (2010). In Rhetorical Federalism, I made an affirmative case for the widespread trend of state resistance to the then-recently enacted Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). Before and immediately after ACA’s enactment, a significant number of states engaged in various forms of objection to the new federal Act, including but not limited to lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate. My article focused on five targets of …

Rhetorical Federalism: The Value Of State-Based Dissent To Federal Health Reform, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

This Article makes the affirmative case for the widespread trend of state resistance to the recently enacted, comprehensive federal health reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, or ACA. A significant number of states have engaged in various forms of objection to the new federal laws, including filing lawsuits against the federal government, enacting laws providing that ACA will not apply to residents of the state, and refusing to cooperate with implementing the new laws. This Article identifies reasons why those actions should not be disregarded simply as Tea Party antics or election-year gamesmanship but instead …

Cooperative Federalism And Healthcare Reform: The Medicare Part D 'Clawback' Example, Elizabeth Weeks Leonard

Scholarly Works

This symposium article recounts recent litigation by several states over a provision of the Medicare Modernization Act Part D prescription drug benefit: The clawback, which requires states to pay the a potentially substantial portion of new federal program. I then examine the unique federalism implications of the clawback for ongoing state and federal health reform initiatives.

In spring 2006, several states petitioned the United States Supreme Court for original jurisdiction to hear a challenge to one provision of the new Medicare Part D prescription drug law. The federal government, while taking over prescription drug coverage for dually eligible beneficiaries, required …