Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

An Empirical Assessment Of Georgia’S Beyond A Reasonable Doubt Standard To Determine Intellectual Disability In Capital Cases, Lauren Sudeall Lucas

Georgia State University Law Review

In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held that execution of people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. In doing so, the Court explicitly left to the states the question of which procedures would be used to identify such defendants as exempt from the death penalty. More than a decade before Atkins, Georgia was the first state to bar execution of people with intellectual disability. Yet, of the states that continue to impose the death penalty as a punishment for capital murder, Georgia is the only state that requires capital defendants …

The Limits Of Reading Law In The Affordable Care Act Cases, Kevin C. Walsh

Scholarly Articles

One of the most highly lauded legacies of Justice Scalia's decades-long tenure on the Supreme Court was his leadership of a movement to tether statutory interpretation more closely to statutory text. His dissents in the Affordable Care Act cases- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell- demonstrate both the nature and the limits of his success in that effort.

These were two legal challenges, one constitutional and the other statutory, that threatened to bring down President Obama's signature legislative achievement, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Both times the Court swerved away from a direct …

The Limits Of Reading Law In The Affordable Care Act Cases, Kevin C. Walsh

Law Faculty Publications

One of the most highly lauded legacies of Justice Scalia's decades-long tenure on the Supreme Court was his leadership of a movement to tether statutory interpretation more closely to statutory text. His dissents in the Affordable Care Act cases- National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell- demonstrate both the nature and the limits of his success in that effort.

These were two legal challenges, one constitutional and the other statutory, that threatened to bring down President Obama's signature legislative achievement, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Both times the Court swerved away from a direct …

The Institutional Case For Partisan Gerrymandering Claims, G. Michael Parsons

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

For voters hoping the Supreme Court’s 2017 Term brings relief from partisan gerrymandering, the end of the 2016 Term was inauspicious. In Cooper v. Harris, the majority assumed the legitimacy of “partisan advantage” arguments while the dissent—including Justice Kennedy—warned about the “serious institutional and federalism implications” of judicial intervention in the redistricting process. If past is prologue, this concern for institutional and structural interests does not bode well.

Anti-Disruption Statutory Construction, Jonathan H. Adler

Cardozo Law Review

The article examines Chief Justice John Roberts' approach to statutory interpretation, characterizing it as a form of "Burkean minimalism." This approach prioritizes judicial restraint, avoiding disruptive outcomes and maintaining stability in the law, even if it requires departing from the plain meaning of statutory text. Roberts' decisions often reflect a pragmatic willingness to reinterpret statutes to prevent significant disruptions, uphold legislative enactments, and preserve constitutional harmony, rather than adhering strictly to textualist or doctrinal purity.

Ftc V. Phoebe Putney And Municipalities As Nongovernments, Peter F. Nascenzi

Northwestern University Law Review

American courts have long struggled with categorizing municipalities. They treat municipalities sometimes as private corporations, sometimes as governmental bodies, and sometimes as something in between. This uncertainty provides a shaky foundation for local government law and hampers its development. Local governments are not sure of their powers, and states are unable to create a comprehensive vision of municipal governance. When federal law is involved, the situation is muddled further.

In FTC v. Phoebe Putney, the Supreme Court’s application of the state action doctrine unnecessarily injected federal antitrust law into the relationship between states and municipalities. The state action doctrine …

Nfib V. Sebelius And The Individual Mandate: Thoughts On The Tax/Regulation Distinction, Kyle D. Logue

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

When Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion of the Court in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (NFIB) explaining the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) minimum essential coverage provision (sometimes referred to as the individual mandate), he reasoned that the mandate—or, more precisely, the enforcement provision that accompanied the mandate (the Shared Responsibility Payment or SRP)—could be understood as a tax on the failure to purchase health insurance. According to this view, the enactment of the mandate and its accompanying enforcement provisions fell within Congress’s virtually unlimited power to “lay and collect taxes.” This tax-based interpretation …

The Contours Of The Parallel Claim Exception: The Supreme Court's Opportunity To Define The Ill-Defined, Jarret Sena

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The (Perhaps) Unintended Consequences Of King V. Burwell, Kristin E. Hickman

Pepperdine Law Review

The Supreme Court’s decision in King v. Burwell surprised many people, not because of its outcome but because, even as the Court ultimately agreed with the IRS’s interpretation of the statute, the Court expressly denied the IRS Chevron deference. As regards that result, this Essay makes three points. First, the Chevron discussion in King was not incidental, but the IRS and taxes were not foremost on the Court’s mind. Rather, King reflects a careful effort by Chief Justice Roberts to accomplish, through alternative framing, a broader curtailment of Chevron’s scope that he advocated unsuccessfully two terms earlier in City of …

King V. Burwell: The Supreme Court's Missed Opportunity To Cure What Ails Chevron, Vanessa L. Johnson, Marisa Finley, J. James Rohack

Journal of Legislation

The article outlines the construct of the ACA’s premium assistance tax credits, explores the legal controversies surrounding these subsidies, uses the tax subsidies cases to demonstrate the flaws in the Chevron framework, and argues that the Supreme Court should have framed its King v. Burwell analysis in a way that would have cured, rather than ignored, the ails of Chevron.

Abortion, Informed Consent, And Regulatory Spillover, Katherine A. Shaw, Alex Stein

Indiana Law Journal

The constitutional law of abortion stands on the untenable assumption that any state’s abortion regulations impact citizens of that state alone. On this understand-ing, the state’s boundaries demarcate the terrain on which women’s right to abortion clashes with state power to regulate that right.

This Article uncovers a previously unnoticed horizontal dimension of abortion regulation: the medical-malpractice penalties imposed upon doctors for failing to inform patients about abortion risks; the states’ power to define those risks, along with doctors’ informed-consent obligations and penalties; and, critically, the possi-bility that such standards might cross state lines. Planned Parenthood v. Casey and other …

The Health Exception, Monica E. Eppinger

All Faculty Scholarship

The abortion doctrine laid out in Roe v. Wade permits a procedure necessary to preserve the life or the health of the pregnant woman, setting out what has come to be called the “life exception” and the “health exception.” This Article investigates the background and antecedents of the health exception, identifying three periods of formation and change up to the drafting of the Model Penal Code in 1959. It argues that theories of health lie at the heart of legal doctrine, shaping common-law treatment of abortion and persisting in nineteenth- and twentieth-century statutes. This account reveals origins of a health …

North Carolina State Board Of Dental Examiners V. Ftc: Aligning Antitrust Law With Commerce Clause Jurisprudence Through A Natural Shift Of State-Federal Balance Of Power, Marie Forney

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court’s holding in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC (NC Dental)1 in February 2015 demonstrates a natural shift in the balance of power from the states to the national government. As the country’s interstate and international economy has become more integrated, federal authority has likewise expanded.2 And although the federalism dichotomy has undergone periodic back-and-forth “swings” since the nation’s founding, the end result has been a net increase in federal power. NC Dental exemplifies this trend toward increasing national au-thority through the organic development of interstate commerce.

En-Gendering Economic Inequality, Michele E. Gilman

All Faculty Scholarship

We live in an era of growing economic inequality. Luminaries ranging from the President to the Pope to economist Thomas Piketty in his bestselling book Capital in the Twenty- First Century have raised alarms about the disparity between the haves and the have-nots. Overlooked, however, in these important discussions is the reality that economic inequality is not a uniform experience; rather, its effects fall more harshly on women and minorities. With regard to gender, American women have higher rates of poverty and get paid less than comparable men, and their workplace participation rates are falling. Yet economic inequality is neither …

Substantial Confusion About "Substantial Burdens", Chad Flanders

All Faculty Scholarship

As the Supreme Court rev1s1ts the clash between religious belief and the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in the Zubik¹ case, it is worth mulling over a key phrase in the law that governs that clash: '·substantial burden." According to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), the government must-provided it does not meet certain other conditions, such as showing a compelling interest-make an accommodation if it places a ''substantial burden'' on a person's religious exercise.² If the question in the Hobby Lobby case was whether a for-profit corporation could be a ''person" that ''exercised religion,"³ the question the …

Transparency And The Supreme Court—Can Employers Refuse To Disclose How Much They Pay For Health Care?, Nicholas Bagley, Christopher Koller

Articles

For decades, the prices that hospitals and physicians charge private insurers have been treated as trade secrets. Even though inflated prices are an enormous reason why health care is so much more expensive in the United States than in other countries, we have only a hazy picture of what those prices actually are.

Finders Keepers, Or Finders Weepers? A Proposed Answer To A Question Raised By Myriad Genetics, Jingshi Shi

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

Table Of Contents, Vol. 22:1, Journal Of Intellectual Property Law

Georgia Journal of Law & Technology

No abstract provided.

Section 8: Looking Ahead: Abortion And The Aca Contraception Mandate, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

The Antitrust Laws And The Health Industry, Robert P. Borsody

Akron Law Review

"The health industry is one of the largest and fastest growing sectors of the nation's economy, yet in the past, trade regulation cases arising in this area have been disproportionately few. Today this is changing. The courts and regulatory agencies have increasingly held the attitude that if physicians and health care providers wish to reap the benefits of commercial activity they must bear the burden of competition, including trade regulation."

Is Meaningful Peer Review Headed Back To Florida?, Brendan A. Sorg

Akron Law Review

This comment lays the foundation to evaluate the sustainability of Amendment 7 post-PSQIA in Part II by first examining medical peer review, its origin, its evolution and why peer review remains important to patient safety. Although many physicians dislike peer review, Congress has acknowledged its importance by making peer review mandatory and by providing the statutory protections to ensure peer review remains meaningful.7 States have followed suit, passing their own laws that provide for the protection of peer review materials. Part II also addresses how Amendment 7 reversed Florida’s historical approach providing broad peer review protection and how this erosion …

Compelling Interests And Contraception, Neil S. Siegel, Reva Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

On the eve of Griswold v. Connecticut’s fiftieth anniversary, employers are bringing challenges under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) to federal laws requiring them to include contraception in the health insurance benefits that they offer their employees. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, five Justices asserted that the government has compelling interests in ensuring employees access to contraception, but did not discuss those interests in any detail. In what follows, we clarify those interests by connecting discussion in the Hobby Lobby opinions and the federal government’s briefs to related cases on compelling interests and individual rights in the areas …

No Good Options: Picking Up The Pieces After King V. Burwell, Nicholas Bagley, David K. Jones

Articles

If the Supreme Court rules against the government in King v. Burwell, insurance subsidies available under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will evaporate in the thirty-four states that have refused to establish their own health-care exchanges. The pain could be felt within weeks. Without subsidies, an estimated eight or nine million people stand to lose their health coverage. Because sicker people will retain coverage at a much higher rate than healthier people, insurance premiums in the individual market will surge by as much as fifty percent. Policymakers will come under intense pressure to mitigate the fallout from a government loss …

Contraception As A Sex Equality Right, Neil S. Siegel, Reva B. Siegel

Faculty Scholarship

Challenges to federal law requiring insurance coverage of contraception are occurring on the eve of the 50th Anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Griswold v. Connecticut. It is a good time to reflect on the values served by protecting women’s access to contraception.

In 1965, the Court ruled in Griswold that a law criminalizing the use of contraception violated the privacy of the marriage relationship. Griswoldoffered women the most significant constitutional protection since the Nineteenth Amendment gave women the right to vote, constitutional protection as important as the cases prohibiting sex discrimination that the Court would …

Predicting The Fallout From King V. Burwell - Exchanges And The Aca, Nicholas Bagley, David K. Jones, Timothy Stoltzfus Jost

Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court's surprise announcement on November 7 that it would hear King v. Burwell struck fear in the hearts of supporters of the Affordable Cara Act (ACA). At stake is the legality of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule extending tax credits to the 4.5 million people who bought their health plans in the 34 states that declined to establish their own health insurance exchanges under the ACA. The case hinges on enigmatic statutory language that seems to link the amount of tax credits to a health plan purchased "through an Exchange established by the State." According to …

Kermit Gosnell’S Babies: Abortion, Infanticide And Looking Beyond The Masks Of The Law, Richard F. Duncan

Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications

If, as Laurence Tribe has observed, “all law tells a story,” this Article tells two stories occurring forty years apart—the story of Justice Harry Blackmun and the unborn human beings he covered with the legal mask of “potential” lives in Roe v. Wade in 1973, and the story of Doctor Kermit Gosnell and the unmasked babies he was convicted of murdering in his Philadelphia abortion clinic in 2013. As Professor Tribe also observes, these stories amount to “a clash of absolutes, of life against liberty,” and therefore they are stories that must be told time and again, until we get …

King, Chevron, And The Age Of Textualism, Abigail R. Moncrieff

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

In the King v. Burwell oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts—usually one of the more active members of the Court—asked only one substantive question, addressed to the Solicitor General: "If you're right about Chevron [deference applying to this case], that would indicate that a subsequent administration could change [your] interpretation?" As it turns out, that question was crucial to Roberts's thinking and to the 6-3 opinion he authored, but almost all commentators either undervalued or misunderstood the question's import (myself included). The result of Roberts's actual thinking was an unfortunate outcome for Chevron—and potentially for the rule of law—despite …

Corporate Religious Liberty, Caroline Mala Corbin

Articles

No abstract provided.

Section 1: Moot Court: King V. Burwell, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Themes, Doctrine, And Pedagogy In The 2013-2014 National Health Law Moot Court Competition Problem, Anita Bernstein

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.