Law Commons^™

King V Burwell: Subsidizing Us Health Insurance For Low- And Middle-Income Individuals, Lawrence O. Gostin, Mary C. Debartolo, Daniel Hougendobler

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court once again saved the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by upholding subsidies (tax credits) offered to low- and middle-income individuals for insurance bought on federal exchanges. A contrary opinion would have put at risk health insurance for 6.4 million Americans and threatened to destabilize insurance markets for millions more.

The ACA is supported by four interlocking reforms, each of which are necessary to realize its promise of expanding health care coverage: (1) guaranteed issue (prohibiting discrimination based on pre-existing conditions), (2) community rating (barring insurers from imposing higher premiums based on health …

The Abiding Exceptionalism Of Foreign Relations Doctrine, Carlos Manuel Vázquez

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In their article The Normalization of Foreign Relations Law, Professors Ganesh Sitaraman and Ingrid Wuerth argue that “[foreign affairs] exceptionalism . . . is now exceptional,” and that this is a good thing. I agree with much of the authors’ normative argument for “normalization” of foreign affairs doctrine (as they define the term). But the authors overstate the extent to which such normalization has already occurred. There have indeed been some recent Supreme Court decisions that seem to lack the exceptional deference to the Executive that had characterized judicial decisionmaking in the foreign affairs area in previous years. But foreign …

A Deer In Headlights: The Supreme Court, Lgbt Rights, And Equal Protection, Nan D. Hunter

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In this essay, I argue that the problems with how courts apply Equal Protection principles to classifications not already recognized as suspect reach beyond the most immediate example of sexual orientation. Three structural weaknesses drive the juridical reluctance to bring coherence to this body of law: two doctrinal and one theoretical. The first doctrinal problem is that the socio-political assumptions that the 1938 Supreme Court relied on in United States v. Carolene Products, Inc. to justify strict scrutiny for “discrete and insular minorities” have lost their validity. In part because of Roe v. Wade-induced PTSD, the courts have …