This next conversation is with Joshua Hawley, a former clerk to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri, about the arc of power exercised by the Supreme Court since the …
Last year’s Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act was one of the most controversial cases in American history. In NFIB v. Sebelius, a narrow 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld the ACA’s individual health insurance mandate …
…
My colleague Ilya Somin has penned a good piece on “The Individual Mandate and the Proper Meaning of ‘Proper’,” arguing that Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius has “moved our jurisprudence closer to the proper meaning of …
…
My friend and faculty colleague Eric Claeys has just published a very fine piece on the appropriate (conservative) response to NFIB v. Sebelius.
He rejects, as do I, a “the Court has spoken and therefore” theory of the Constitution, …
This is a short postscript to my previous posts on NFIB v. Sebelius. In those posts, I came to the conclusion that the lead opinion “works,” to whatever extent it does, because it takes a static view of the structural …
My last post explained my belief that Section III-B of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius relies on equating a law having the arithmetic effect of raising taxes (while simultaneously offering a tax credit) with an exercise of …
In Parts III-C and III-D of his opinion in NFIB v. Sebelius, Chief Justice Roberts concludes that
[t]he Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as …
In the course of his thoughtful discussion of Chief Justice Roberts’ reported change of mind on NFIB v. Sebelius, Mike Rappaport makes what seems, at first glance, to be an unassailable assertion: A justice ought not to consider extraneous circumstances …
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Email