Supreme Court questions idea it must wait on healthcare mandate

Court’s open-minded GOP appointees may give health care a chance

Health care law’s defenders look to George Washington

Supreme Court faces an unprecedented frenzy during health reform arguments

With friends like these: 136 amici filed in Obamacare litigation

Cast of Lawyers Arguing Supreme Court Health Care Cases Now Set

Obama Health-Care Foe Clement Becomes Republicans’ Go-To Lawyer

Harvard Business School Program: Is the Affordable Care Act Constitutional?

    The HBS Joint Program will focus upon two of the four arguments that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear:
    Whether Congress has the power under Article I of the Constitution to enact the individual mandate provisions of ACA?
    If the individual mandate is not constitutional, then to what extent can the mandate be severed from the rest of PPACA? Or, is it a necessary part of the law whose other provisions, especially the insurance reforms (such as prohibiting denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions), cannot stand on their own?


  • Posted: 03/07/2012
  • |
  • Category: Miscellaneous
  • |
  • Source: www.hbshealthalumni.org

  • Tags: , ,

Many States Take a Wait-and-See Approach on New Insurance Exchanges

Evidence Mounts Against Justice Kagan For Recusal In ObamaCare Suit

Supreme Court says no to debate over Elena Kagan health care role

Why Justice Kagan May Need to Recuse Herself from Obamacare Case

On health reform, the election will matter more than SCOTUS

Nearly 500 state lawmakers to press Supreme Court to uphold healthcare mandate

Obama administration defends healthcare law in Supreme Court brief

Virginia challenged on health care

SCOTUS Blog: The timing issue on health care

4th Circuit Panel (Dem Appointees) Shoots Down Va. Challenges to Healthcare Law

Health Care Law: Two Eagerly Anticipated Rulings Expected This Summer

U.S. urges 4th circuit to decide constitutionality of Obamacare

4th Circuit raises new jurisdictional issues in VA healthcare litigation

4th Circuit Dem appointees signal they are likely to uphold Obamacare

Stacked Appeals Court Panel Hearing Obamacare Legal Challenge

Challenges to health care law get appellate hearing Tuesday

Liberty Counsel: Federal Healthcare Law to be Argued Next Week in 4th Circuit

    Liberty Counsel: Mat Staver will present oral argument at the federal court of appeals on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 9:30 am ET, challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often referred to as “ObamaCare.” The case, Liberty University v. Geithner, will be heard at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit at 1000 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia. Liberty Counsel represents Liberty University and two private individuals. On the same day, the court of appeals will also hear the case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius


  • Posted: 05/03/2011
  • |
  • Category: Miscellaneous
  • |
  • Source: www.lc.org

  • Tags: , , ,

Supreme Court rejects fast track of Virginia’s Obamacare challenge, grants no new cases

Supreme Court punts on fast-track review of healthcare law

Cuccinelli Makes Long-Shot Court Bid to Overturn Obama’s Health-Care Law

Virginia pushes anew for Supreme Court review of US health care law

U.S urges slow down in Virginia’s Obamacare litigation

New U.S. appeal on health care

One giant health care case?

Law, Law, Law, Law, Law: Elite profs answer constitutional arguments by sticking their fingers in their ears.

Virginia asks Supreme Court to hear healthcare, argues nation in uncertainty

Ginsburg on health care timing

Virginia to seek immediate appeal to SCOTUS on health law

U.S. appeals ruling striking down Obama’s health law

The states versus ObamaCare

Terrain shifts in challenges to the health care law

SCOTUSblog: Virginia pondering own appeal on health

The Supreme Court and Obama’s health care law

Ken Connor: Restrained by the Constitution

    Ken Connor writing at The Christian Post: “Perhaps to the chagrin of some conservatives who would have relished an ideologically-driven, politically-charged decision (and despite the wild accusations among some on the far left that this decision signals the first step towards a judicial imposition of a ‘libertarian utopia’), Judge Hudson doesn’t second guess or venture an opinion about the wisdom or merits of the legislation. His analysis is a constitutional one, not a political or sociological one, and the question he considered is simple: Does the Constitution confer on the Congress the power to penalize individuals for not purchasing a particular good or service in the marketplace?”


  • Posted: 12/17/2010
  • |
  • Category: Bench & Bar
  • |
  • Source: www.christianpost.com

  • Tags: , , ,

SCOTUSblog: Delay on health care appeal?

Health Suits Stir Concerns on Court Partisanship

VA AG: If we lose, gov’t “will be able to order” people to buy anything

The doctrinal limits of “necessary” in the Necessary and Proper Clause

Washington Post: Cuccinelli basking in court victory

Virginia ruling won’t skip federal appeals court

SCOTUSblog: Health insurance mandate nullified

    SCOTUSblog: “A federal judge in Richmond, Va., ruled Monday that Congress had no authority under the Constitution to require that nearly every American obtain health insurance by the year 2014 — a crucial part of the health care package promoted by President Obama. U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, in a 42-page ruling, declared that ‘an individual’s personal decision to purchase — or decline to purchase — health insurance from a private provider is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause.’”


  • Posted: 12/14/2010
  • |
  • Category: Miscellaneous
  • |
  • Source: www.scotusblog.com

  • Tags: ,

Heritage Foundation: Courts may invalidate, but Obamacare is already collapsing under its own weight

From Judge Hudson’s Pen to Justice Scalia’s Ear

    Jonathan Adler writes at the Volokh Conspiracy: “Many critics of Judge Hudson’s opinion in Virginia v. Sebelius have shorted his discussion of the Necessary and Proper Clause. (Even some of us who support the opinion have accepted this critique.) But Brooklyn Law’s Jason Mazzone suggests Judge Hudson’s critics are misreading his opinion, which was written more for Justice Scalia than legal academics.”


  • Posted: 12/14/2010
  • |
  • Category: Miscellaneous
  • |
  • Source: volokh.com

  • Tags: ,

Reactions mixed on health care ruling

Conservatives laud ruling striking down health care reform law

Pro-life groups applaud judge’s ruling against ObamaCare

Judge torpedoes Obamacare, warns of “unbridled fed police”

Health law faces threat of undercut from courts

Third lawsuit against pro-abortion ObamaCare gets court hearing in Virginia

Another victory on the road to repeal of healthcare law

Thoughts on the federal district court ruling refusing to dismiss the Virginia health care lawsuit

Va. health care challenge clears 1st hurdle