ACS National Convention

June 14 - 16, 2012

Washington, DC

Register Now

Login:

Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.

March 29, 2012
The Roberts Court Dangerously Close to Eroding Institution’s Credibility
Guest Post
By Fazal Khan, a law professor at the University of Georgia specializing in health law. Professor Khan has both law and medical degrees. This post is part of an ACSblog online symposium on oral argument in HHS v. Florida.

On Wednesday afternoon the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether the states can challenge the federal government’s expansion of Medicaid. Representing 26 states that oppose ACA in its entirety, former Solicitor General Paul Clement went first claiming that the federal government is “coercing” states to accept this unwanted expansion of Medicaid. As expected, the “liberal” justices pounced on Paul Clement’s central argument. Whereas Clement seemed very cocksure Tuesday arguing against the minimum coverage provision, on Wednesday he was not as deft in parrying the skeptical attacks from the justices, including Antonin Scalia and the chief justice.

Clement did regain his poise at the end during a strongly delivered (yet still substantively weak) rebuttal. Solicitor General Don Verrilli bounced back admirably after what can be fairly described as a difficult day on Tuesday. He was much more assertive and confident in pushing back against the “conservative” justices and possessed a strong command of the history of Medicaid and previous mandatory expansions of the program which really seem no different than the expansion at issue today.

More
Tags:
Federalism, Supreme Court, Constitutional Interpretation and Change, ACA, ACA Oral Arguments Blogging Symposium, Affordable Care Act, Chief Justice John Roberts, Guest Post, HHS v. Florida, Justice Elena Kagan, Medicaid expansion, minimum coverage provision, Paul Clement, Professor Fazal Khan, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., the Roberts Court
March 27, 2012
Court-Watchers Tell Us Health Care Law’s Integral Provision Appears in Trouble
by Jeremy Leaming

The spin is in on today’s health care law oral arguments – Paul Clement, the attorney for the state’s challenging the law’s minimum coverage provision, is awesome, and the provision is in trouble.

But, as noted yesterday by constitutional law professor Garrett Epps you’re on wobbly ground when predicting Supreme Court opinions based on oral argument theatrics. Sure, Clement is an outstanding high court litigator -- we’ll take it from SCOTUSblog founder Tom Goldstein who lavished praise on Clement at an oral argument preview last month, calling him one of the greatest attorneys of his generation.

What we can tell from today’s oral argument is that the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr., largely focused on Congress’s constitutional authority to regulate interstate commerce. The government has also argued that Congress’s constitutional power to tax and spend also supports the minimum coverage provision. Most of the justices, however, we're glued to the commerce clause question.

SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston, a veteran Supreme Court correspondent, wrote of today’s oral argument that Justice Anthony Kennedy, “after first displaying a very deep skepticism,” provided toward the end of oral argument “the impression that he might yet be the mandate’s savior."

Additionally, the high court’s four moderate to left-of-center justices appear inclined to vote in favor of the ACA provision, which requires many to start carrying a minimum amount of health care insurance in 2014.

More
Tags:
Commerce clause, Supreme Court, Constitutional Interpretation and Change, Affordable Care Act, Health Care Reform, HHS v. Florida, individual mandate, minimum coverage provision, Paul Clement, Simon Lazarus, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.
February 3, 2012
Ala. Immigration Law Hobbling State’s Economy, Study Says
by Jeremy Leaming

Alabama’s harsh anti-immigrant law is already costing the state billions in lost revenue, according to a study by Samuel N. Addy, an economist at the University of Alabama.

Reporting for Politico, MJ Lee notes that Addy’s report, “determined that the estimated 40,000 to 80,000 unauthorized immigrant workers fleeing the state have resulted in 70,000 to 140,000 jobs lost and $2.3 to $10.8 billion reduction in Alabama’s GDP annually.” The law moreover, is expected to cost the state “$56.7 to $264.5 million in reduced state income and sale tax collections, as well as $20 to $93.1 million less in local sales tax collections ….”

Addy’s study centers largely on the law’s harm to the state’s overall economy, concluding that because it has already spurred scores of undocumented people to flee the state it has negatively impacted the state’s economic landscape. The professor says the “income generated by these people [undocumented workers fleeing the state] and their spending will decline. That results in a shrinking of the state economy and will be seen in lower economic output, personal income, fewer jobs, and lower tax revenues than would otherwise have been.”

In coming to this conclusion about the law’s impact on the state’s economy, Addy, perhaps curiously, asserts that nobody “can fault the intent of the law” and that the law is “well-intentioned,” because it is aimed at tackling “illegal immigration.” He also highlights some “potential economic benefits of the law,” such as “saving funds used to provide public benefits to illegal immigrants; increased safety for citizens and legal residents; more business, employment, and education opportunities; and ensuring the integrity of various governmental programs and services.”

Regardless of the law’s intent, its sweep has provoked protests throughout the state and some withering national scrutiny. Shortly after the law’s enactment, The New York Times opined that it was “the country’s cruelest, most unforgiving immigration law.”

More
Tags:
Immigration, Alabama anti-immigration law, MJ Lee, Obama administration, S.B. 1070, Samuel N. Addy, Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., Supreme Court

Site designed by Free Range Studios
Site developed by Jackson River

1333 H St, NW, 11th Floor
Washington, DC 20005

T. (202) 393-6181
F. (202) 393-6189
info@ACSLaw.org