Law Commons^™

The Pioneers, Waves, And Random Walks Of Securities Law In The Supreme Court, Elizabeth Pollman

Seattle University Law Review

After the pioneers, waves, and random walks that have animated the history of securities laws in the U.S. Supreme Court, we might now be on the precipice of a new chapter. Pritchard and Thompson’s superb book, A History of Securities Law in the Supreme Court, illuminates with rich archival detail how the Court’s view of the securities laws and the SEC have changed over time and how individuals have influenced this history. The book provides an invaluable resource for understanding nearly a century’s worth of Supreme Court jurisprudence in the area of securities law and much needed context for …

Three Stories: A Comment On Pritchard & Thompson’S A History Of Securities Laws In The Supreme Court, Harwell Wells

Seattle University Law Review

Adam Pritchard and Robert Thompson’s A History of Securities Laws in the Supreme Court should stand for decades as the definitive work on the Federal securities laws’ career in the Supreme Court across the twentieth century.1 Like all good histories, it both tells a story and makes an argument. The story recounts how the Court dealt with the major securities laws, as well the agency charged with enforcing them, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the rules it promulgated, from the 1930s into the twenty-first century. But the book does not just string together a series of events, “one …

Students For Fair Admissions: Affirming Affirmative Action And Shapeshifting Towards Cognitive Diversity?, Steven A. Ramirez

Seattle University Law Review

The Roberts Court holds a well-earned reputation for overturning Supreme Court precedent regardless of the long-standing nature of the case. The Roberts Court knows how to overrule precedent. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), the Court’s majority opinion never intimates that it overrules Grutter v. Bollinger, the Court’s leading opinion permitting race-based affirmative action in college admissions. Instead, the Roberts Court applied Grutter as authoritative to hold certain affirmative action programs entailing racial preferences violative of the Constitution. These programs did not provide an end point, nor did they require assessment, review, periodic expiration, or revision for greater …

Transparency, Independence And Diversity: Does The United States Have It Better?-A Comparative Analysis Of The Process Of Appointment Of Judges To The Supreme Court In The United States And India., Varun Vaish

Varun Vaish

The rise of legal realism has made it manifestly clear that the background and worldview of judges influence cases.This is evidenced in the United States where the appointment of judges to the higher judiciary is believed to be, at least in some measure, predicated upon the proximity of the political ideology of the judge with that of the appointing party. This influence is acknowledged, questioned and somewhat mitigated against by the process of appointment wherein the Senate ratifies the president’s choice. However the lack of acknowledgement of this influence and its consequent securitization, in the appointment of judges is where …

The Gravitational Force Of Originalism, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In part I of this essay, prepared for the Fordham conference on “The New Originalism and Constitutional Law,” I describe four aspects of the New Originalism: (1) The New Originalism is about identifying the original public meaning of the Constitution rather than the original framers intent; (2) The interpretive activity of identifying the original public meaning of the text is a purely descriptive empirical inquiry; (3) But there is also a normative tenet of the New Originalism that contends that the original public meaning of the text should be followed; (4) Distinguishing between the activities of interpretation and construction identifies …

No Small Feat: Who Won The Health Care Case (And Why Did So Many Law Professors Miss The Boat)?, Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this essay, prepared as the basis for the 2013 Dunwody Distinguished Lecture in Law at the Fredric G. Levin College of Law, University of Florida, I describe five aspects of the Supreme Court’s decision in NFIB v. Sebelius that are sometimes overlooked or misunderstood. (1) The Court held that imposing economic mandates on the people was unconstitutional under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses; (2) Whether viewed from a formalist or realist perspective, Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning was the holding in the case; (3) The Court did not uphold the constitutionality of the individual insurance mandate under the …

Justice Roberts’ America, Robin West

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Less than a week after the Roberts Court issued its decision in National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, Jeffrey Toobin, writing in The New Yorker, compared the first part of Chief Justice John Roberts's opinion, in which he found that the Commerce Clause did not authorize Congress to enact the "individual mandate" section of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires all individuals to buy health insurance, with an Ayn Rand screed, noting that the pivotal sections of the argument were long on libertarian rhetoric but short on citations of authority. Roberts held (although "held" might be …

An O’Neill Institute Briefing Paper: The Supreme Court’S Landmark Decision On The Affordable Care Act: Healthcare Reform’S Ultimate Fate Remains Uncertain, Emily W. Parento, Lawrence O. Gostin

O'Neill Institute Papers

The Supreme Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a landmark on the path toward ensuring universal access to health care in the United States. In a 5-4 decision written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court upheld the law in its entirety with the sole exception that Congress may not revoke existing state Medicaid funding to penalize states that decline to participate in the Medicaid expansion under the ACA. In this O’Neill Institute Briefing, we explain and analyze the Court’s decision, focusing on the individual purchase mandate and the Medicaid expansion, while …

Healthcare Reform Hangs In The Balance, Lawrence O. Gostin

O'Neill Institute Papers

In this timely new briefing, Professor Lawrence O. Gostin, University Professor and Faculty Director, O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law, Georgetown University writes:

Prior to Tuesday’s arguments, I believed that the Supreme Court would uphold the health insurance purchase mandate by a comfortable margin. But now I believe that health care reform hangs in the balance. Here are the key arguments on which the future of President Obama’s health care reform depends: a greater freedom, cost-shifting, the health care market, acts versus omissions, limiting principles, the population-base approach, and what is necessary and proper. If the Court strikes …

Why The Affordable Care Act's Individual Purchase Mandate Is Both Constitutional And Indispensable To The Public Welfare, Lawrence O. Gostin

O'Neill Institute Papers

Integral to the Affordable Care Act's (ACA’s) conceptual design is the individual purchase mandate, which requires most individuals to pay an annual tax penalty if they do not have health insurance by 2014. Despite the vociferous opposition, the mandate is the most “market-friendly” financing device because it relies on the private sector. Ironically, less market-oriented reforms such as a single-payer system clearly would have been constitutional.

It is common sense for everyone to purchase health insurance and thus gain security against the potentially catastrophic costs of treating a serious illness or injury. However, Congress’ method of ensuring that everyone has …

Affordable Care Act Litigation: The Supreme Court And The Future Of Health Care Reform, Lawrence O. Gostin, Kelli K. Garcia

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In Florida v. HHS, a lawsuit brought on behalf of 26 states challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Supreme Court will determine the future direction of health care reform in the United States. During the unprecedented 5-1/2 hours of oral arguments, the Court will hear 4 issues: the individual purchase mandate, severability, the Medicaid expansion and the Anti-Injunction Act.

The states challenging the ACA maintain that the purchase mandate uniquely penalizes individuals for failing to purchase insurance. Uninsured individuals, however, rarely do nothing. Instead, they self-insure, rely on family, and cost-shift to …

On Teaching Conflicts And Why I Dislike Allstate Insurance Co. V. Hague, Thomas O. Main

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

So Much For The Commerce Clause Challenge To Individual Mandate Being "Frivolous", Randy E. Barnett

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Remember when the Commerce Clause challenge to the individual insurance mandate was dismissed by all serious and knowledgeable constitutional law professors and Nancy Pelosi as "frivolous"? Well, as Jonathan notes, the administration is now apparently telling the New York Times that the individual insurance "requirement" and "penalty" is really an exercise of the Tax Power of Congress.

On The Constitutionality Of Health Care Reform, Barak D. Richman

Faculty Scholarship

This commentary describes the legal challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Gift Or Loan Of State Money

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Federal Courts And The Regulation Of The Insurance Industry: An Empirical And Historical Analysis Of Courts' Ineffectual Attempts To Harmonize Federal Antitrust, Arbitration, And Insolvency Statutes With The Mccarran-Ferguson Act--1941-1993, Willy E. Rice

Faculty Articles

The movement to reform the McCarran-Ferguson Act is misplaced. The Supreme Court and the lower federal courts are inferior forums for resolving insurance-related controversies. The language of the McCarran-Ferguson Act is unclear, and this lack of clarity created division among the federal courts.

Courts are divided over the definition of “business of insurance” and this causes problems for both consumers and the insurance industry. In addition, the Act also states that the Sherman Act shall apply to any insurance-related agreement or activity involving boycott, coercion, or intimidation; yet again, courts are divided over the applicability of the Sherman Act. Also, …

Rules & Regulations

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rules And Regulations

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Insurance Takeover Acts: A Constitutional Analysis After Edgar V. Mite, Christopher Keele

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Book Reviews, Stanley D. Rose (Reviewer), Wallace Mendelson (Reviewer), Lawrence Herman (Reviewer), William R. Anderson (Reviewer)

Vanderbilt Law Review

THE PRESIDENCY OF JOHN ADAMS, THE COLLAPSE OF FEDERALISM, 1795-1800. By Stephen G. Kurtz-- Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1957. Pp. 448. $8.50.

==============================

THE JEFFERSONIAN REPUBLICANS, THE FORMATION OF PARTY ORGANIZATION, 1789-1801. By Noble E. Cunningham, Jr.-- Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1957. Pp. x, 279. $6.00.

==============================

THE SUPREME COURT FROM TAFT TO WARREN-- By Alpheus T. Mason-- Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1958. Pp. 250. $4.95.

===============================

THE LAW OF AWOL. By Alfred Avins. New York: Oceana Publications, 1957. Pp. xxxi, 288. $4.95. --

===============================

TRAFFIC VICTIMS, TORT LAW & INSURANCE. By Leon Green. …