Showing 1–50 of 141 items published in June 2012, most recent first.
Our final Stat Pack for October Term 2011 is now available. This edition features many of the same figures that we have been providing for years now, like the Circuit Scorecard, Frequency in the Majority, and Justice Agreement rates, as well as many new additions, like an expanded section on summary reversals and a Justice-by-Justice Circuit Scorecard.
The opinion in the health care cases is here. Our health-care coverage: Lyle’s report on the Court’s decision to uphold the mandate is here. Lyle’s report on the Medicaid portion of the decision is here. Amy’s report on the decision “In Plain English” is here.
Analysis The modern welfare state, one in which a socially sensitive Congress has been eager to soothe the pangs of poverty, hunger, disease and aging, has created a huge safety net, but people keep falling through it.
On Thursday, after the nation spent months transfixed by one of the highest-profile Supreme Court cases in living memory, the Court announced its long-awaited opinion in the challenges to the Affordable Care Act.
We hope it is a good one.
The following contribution to our post-decision symposium on the health care cases is written by Erwin Chemerinsky. Erwin is the founding dean and distinguished professor of law at the University of California, Irvine School of Law, with a joint appointment in Political Science.
The following contribution to our post-decision symposium on the health care cases is written by David E. Bernstein. David is the George Mason University Foundation Professor at the George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Virginia, where he has been teaching since 1995.
The following contribution to our post-decision symposium on the health care cases is written by Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow in constitutional studies at the Cato Institute and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review.
With the help of our reporter, Lyle Denniston, we will be live blogging as orders are issued today. Once you see the window and our initial welcome, we ask that you do not refresh your browser. Updates will appear without the need for refreshing. The live blog is below the jump.
Starting to think about the potential collateral consequences of the health care ruling, I think it is very likely that one of its major impacts will be to revive claims that several significant civil rights statutes, enacted under Congress’s Spending Power, are unconstitutional.
The following contribution to our post-decision symposium on the health care cases is written by Clark Neily. Clark joined the Institute for Justice as a senior attorney in 2000.
More than eight years after the broadcast of perhaps the most controversial 9/16ths of a second in TV history, the government’s case against CBS-TV finally collapsed in the Supreme Court Friday.
The Supreme Court has left town for the summer, and in doing so, has left the state of West Virginia waiting in suspense over the fate of a federal court ruling that would have required its legislature to come up with new, equal population districts for electing its three members of the U.S. House of Representatives this year.
The following contribution to our post-decision symposium on the health care cases is written by Bradley W. Joondeph, Professor of Law Santa Clara Univeristy. He is also the author of the ACA Litigation Blog.
The following contribution to our post-decision symposium on the health care cases is written by Elizabeth B. Wydra, the Constitutional Accountability Center’s Chief Counsel.
UPDATED Tuesday 7/3 at 3:55 p.m. For those who wish to start following this case, it has now been docketed as 12-13.
Tomorrow morning at ten o’clock, the nine Justices of the Supreme Court will take the bench for the last time before their summer recess. Most will head out of town for the summer, leaving the rest of us to digest one of the most anticipated decisions in memory: the Court’s opinion in the challenges to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).
The long wait is nearly over. At ten o’clock this morning, the Court will release the final three opinions of the Term. As ever, the lion’s share of the coverage focuses on the challenge to the Affordable Care Act.
Welcome to the liveblog. Thursday is the day. Here is our schedule, all times EDT. 8:45a – liveblog begins with introductory explanation. 9a-10a – answers to your questions. 10a-1045a (appx) – decision announcements.
Kevin Russell took these pictures outside the Court this morning.
In addition to its landmark ruling upholding the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court dealt with two other cases today—affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision striking down the Stolen Valor Act in one, and dismissing First American Financial v. Edwards without issuing a decision, thus leaving the Ninth Circuit’s decision intact.
UPDATED to 2:59 p.m. For those reading the opinions, the key section on the mandate is in Roberts’ opinion, from pp. 33-44. That clearly has five votes behind it. —————– Salvaging the idea that Congress did have the power to try to expand health care to virtually all Americans, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the constitutionality of the crucial — and most controversial — feature of the Affordable Care Act.
The Court’s decision on the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion is divided and complicated.
Adam Winkler is a constitutional law professor at UCLA and the author of Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Today’s Supreme Court is often referred to as Anthony Kennedy’s Court.
Before reaching the merits of the Affordable Care Act case, the Supreme Court held that that Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) – a statute that bars suits to restrain the collection of taxes – does not apply to suits challenging the individual mandate.
The following contribution to our post-decision symposium on the health care cases is written by Richard A. Epstein. Richard is the inaugural Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at NYU School of Law. He has served as the Peter and Kirstin Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution since 2000.
Although the Court had four questions before it, the focus of the challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was the so-called individual mandate – the requirement that almost all Americans buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty.
The following contribution to our post-decision symposium on the health care cases is written by Randy E. Barnett. Randy is the Carmack Waterhouse Professor of Legal Theory at the Georgetown University Law Center, where he teaches constitutional law and contracts.
While the Court’s upholding the mandate is deservedly taking front stage in the media coverage, the Court’s decision to strike down a part of the Medicaid expansion may ultimately have broader jurisprudential consequence.
In United States v. Alvarez, a highly anticipated First Amendment case with a quirky fact pattern, the Court held in a vote of six to three that the Stolen Valor Act is unconstitutional.
The following contribution to our post-decision symposium on the health care cases is written by Alan Morrison, Associate Dean for Public Interest, George Washington Law School Amidst nearly 200 pages of disagreement, the Court unanimously concluded that the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) did not apply and that the Court could decide the merits.
Today, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a heroic rebuke to the growing number of Americans who feared the Supreme Court had lost the ability to rise above the narrowminded partisanship that dominates the country’s political discourse.
Gillian Metzger is the Vice Dean and Stanley H. Fuld Professor of Law, Columbia Law School Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in the health-care cases achieved what might have seemed an impossible result: claims of success from all sides, other than from Anti-Injunction Act aficionados.
UPDATED: 7 pm Lost in the hubbub of the health care decision is the Court’s surprise punt in a case that many (including myself) thought would be the sleeper case of the Term.
If you’re in the DC area, please consider joining the SCOTUSblog team at District Commons (2200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW) tonight from 8-10pm. We hope to see you there.
Shortly after ten o’clock this morning, and after more than one false alarm, the Court issued its decision in the challenges to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. In this post, we will dissect the decision in Plain English.
A win for the mandate may prove to be a loss for federal power.
Today’s 5-4 Supreme Court decision upholding the individual health insurance mandate is an extremely frustrating result for those of us who argued that the mandate is unconstitutional. One might even call it taxing.
Today’s decision is a dark cloud with some silver linings.
David B. Kopel is an adjunct professor of constitutional law, Denver University. Author of the Independence Institute amicus brief on state sovereignty and the Medicaid mandate. “The States are separate and independent sovereigns.” So affirms the Court today by a 7-2 vote, in the most important decision ever defining the limits of Congress’s power under the Spending Clause.
Federal appeals courts have ruled repeatedly on challenges to the new federal health care law, with conflicting results. Now, it is the Supreme Court’s turn, to sort it all out. It has selected four issues for review, and is expected to release its ruling shortly after 10 a.m. Thursday.
John Elwood reviews Monday’s relisted and held cases. The world will have to wait another day before the summer’s most highly anticipated event (besides, of course, the big Poison/Mötley Crüe reunion tour).
While anticipation continues to build for tomorrow’s expected ruling on the challenges to the Affordable Care Act, the flurry of opinions and orders released by the Court on Monday also continues to provide ample material for those covering and commenting on the Court.
In the end, you have to make a prediction and take responsibility for it. I believe the mandate will not be invalidated tomorrow. Far less important, I expect the principal opinion will be written by the Chief Justice; a majority of the Court will find it has jurisdiction; and the challenge to the Medicaid expansion will be rejected.
This is the eighth post in our online symposium on Monday’s decision in Arizona v. United States, the federal government’s challenge to Arizona’s S.B. 1070.
This is the ninth post in our online symposium on Monday’s decision in Arizona v. United States, the federal government’s challenge to Arizona’s S.B. 1070. Margaret Stock is an adjunct professor at the University of Alaska Anchorage and Counsel to the firm at Lane Powell PC.
Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Wednesday put on hold a state court ruling that made a punitive damages award look much smaller by putting hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorneys’ fees on the other side of the legal ledger.
This morning Justice Kennedy announced the opinion for the Court in Arizona v. United States, which has dominated the news about the Court today. In Arizona, a majority of the Justices agreed with the lower courts that three of the four provisions of Arizona’s controversial immigration law, S.B. 1070, at issue in the case are preempted by federal immigration law.
Analysis States — and the federal government — that allow life prison sentences without a chance of release for minors who commit murder are now on notice, from the Supreme Court, that they may have a hard time justifying any such sentence that is actually imposed.
This is the sixth post in our online symposium on today’s decision in Arizona v. United States, the federal government’s challenge to Arizona’s S.B. 1070. During the next few days, we will be posting a series of essays on the decision by lawyers and scholars in the field.