Will Baude

The Supreme Court’s common sense problem

Foreclosing equitable relief under Medicaid Act

It was a big day for equity. In Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, decided yesterday, the Court concluded that Medicaid providers do not have a cause of action to challenge a state’s reimbursement rates.

Argument analysis: Working out the broader implications of a Medicaid suit

The Supreme Court has heard a lot of preemption suits, but Tuesday’s arguments in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center suggest that the Court has not yet agreed on what exactly the formal underpinnings of those suits are. The case features a debate about the intersection of two lines of precedent.

Argument preview: A second attempt at defining preemption actions

Tomorrow the Court will hear arguments in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center. The specific dispute in the case is whether the state’s Medicaid reimbursements should be invalidated under a provision of federal law, 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(30)(A).

Symposium: What divides the Court, and what unites it

For those who care primarily about partisan politics, labor law, or the narrative of executive overreach, the Court’s decision yesterday in National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning is a unanimous one.

Opinion analysis: The boundaries of specific jurisdiction

What happens in Las Vegas may stay in Las Vegas, but the inverse is also true. In Walden v. Fiore, decided yesterday, the Court unanimously concluded that a pair of professional gamblers from Nevada could not force a Georgia law enforcement agent to litigate against them in Nevada, because the agent had never had connections to that state.

Opinion recap: A stricter view of general jurisdiction

Readers of the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Daimler Chrysler v. Bauman may have learned two things: First, it is increasingly difficult to establish general jurisdiction over a corporation for conduct unrelated to the forum; second, the Court ultimately resolves the issue it wants to, which may not be the one the parties focused on.

Argument analysis: An attempt to find a narrow ground of agreement

As the first few minutes of oral argument in Walden v. Fiore unfolded on Monday, Walden’s counsel, Jeff Bucholtz, must have been pretty optimistic. For several minutes, the Justices’ questions focused entirely on which of the two questions Walden ought to win on — the personal jurisdiction question or the venue question.

Argument preview: Where can a federal agent be sued?

William Baude will be the Neubauer Family Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Chicago beginning next year. During its October sitting, the Court heard oral arguments in cases involving venue and personal jurisdiction.