ACSBlog

  • September 10, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Ian Millhiser in ThinkProgress and Todd C. Frankel in The Washington Post explain how the Affordable Care Act has impacted major and minor health decisions in everyday life, and the potential cost of Halbig to these changes.

    Michael McGough writes for the Los Angeles Times on the details of last week’s decision from U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman on the constitutionality of Louisiana’s ban on same-sex marriage.

    A new plan to reduce court fees in Ferguson, Mo. could help ease tensions in the city, reports Joseph Shapiro of National Public Radio.

    Erin Fuchs explains for Business Insider why the Supreme Court is examining the issue of prison beards and what it could mean for First Amendment interpretation.

    Mark Joseph Stern of Slate examines why Supreme Court justices sometimes rely on made-up facts for their decisions.  

  • September 9, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Geoffrey R. Stone. He is the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law for the University of Chicago, the former ACS Board Chair and current Co-Chair of the Board of Advisors for the ACS Chicago Lawyer Chapter, and a Co-Faculty Advisor for the University of Chicago Law School ACS Student Chapter

    *This post originally appeared on the Huffington Post. 

    In the context of ongoing deliberations over a proposed amendment to the Constitution to authorize the government to enact laws regulating campaign expenditures and contributions, a sharp, even bitter, rift has emerged between different generations of the ACLU's leadership over the ACLU's understanding of the First Amendment. The rift is not about whether to adopt the proposed constitutional amendment (neither side of the intra-ACLU debate has endorsed it), but about the ACLU's position on the constitutionality of campaign finance reform today.

    The current leadership of the ACLU takes a strong pro-free speech position that, like the position of Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Chief Justice John Roberts, looks askance at most forms of campaign finance regulation that would limit the freedom of individuals to spend as much as they want in the political process to advance their political beliefs.

    The six individuals who led the ACLU from 1962 to 1993 endorse a rather different view. In a letter sent on September 4 to the leadership of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, they embraced a position that, like the position of Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, recognizes that limitations on campaign expenditures and contributions may be necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the democratic process.

  • September 9, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    Walter Shapiro writes for the Brennan Center for Justice on why candidates should reject campaign cash even without strict campaign finance laws.

    In The Boston Globe, Paul Elias reports on oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in three cases dealing with same-sex marriage bans in Idaho, Nevada and Hawaii.   

    A constitutional amendment to allow greater regulation of campaign finance advanced in the Senate, but partisanship could still stall the measure, reports Burgess Everett of Politico.

    Daniel LaChance argues in The New York Times that capital punishment is a failed government program.

    Mark Walsh of Education Week writes about the death of Lillian Gobitas Klose, whose refusal to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1930s led to a Supreme Court case on the First Amendment. 

  • September 8, 2014

    by Caroline Cox

    In Salon, Gabriel Arana assesses the problems with the White House’s new immigration announcement.

    Ari Berman explains in The Nation how cuts to early voting in Ohio violate the Voting Rights Act.

    Erwin Chemerinsky, Faculty Advisor for the UC Irvine School of Law ACS Student Chapter, writes for the ABA Journal on how three decisions about bankruptcy law show how the Supreme Court’s use of reasoning is inconsistent.

    Slate’s Jamelle Bouie argues that those who deny racism are also the most likely to smear the reputation of African American victims. 

    Howard Mintz in the San Jose Mercury News interviews ACS Board of Directors member Mariano-Florentino Cuellar about his new position as an associate justice on the Supreme Court of California. 

  • September 5, 2014
    Guest Post

    by Brianne Gorod, Appellate Counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center.

    This post originally appeared on the Constitutional Accountability Center's Text & History Blog.

    Ever since three-judge panels on the Fourth Circuit and the D.C. Circuit issued conflicting rulings in July on the availability of tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the opponents of the law have been trying to rush their case to the Supreme Court.  That’s where they apparently think they have their best shot at succeeding in what D.C. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards called their “not-so-veiled attempt to gut” the law.  But thanks to an Order just issued by the full D.C. Circuit, their chances of getting the case in front of the Supremes just got a lot lower.

    The two cases involved are just the latest salvo in the ACA opponents’ continuing efforts to kill the ACA by any means possible.  In these challenges, the opponents of the law argue that the ACA, which was enacted to make health insurance affordable for all Americans, doesn’t permit people to receive the tax credits that actually make it affordable if they purchase their insurance in one of the 36 states that have opted to let the federal government run their Exchange.  Thus, they argue, an IRS rule confirming that tax credits are available to all qualifying Americans, regardless of where they live, is invalid under the statute. 

    It’s an argument that shouldn’t hold water in any court.  The opponents of the law rest their argument on one four word phrase—“established by the State”—but ignore the text of the rest of the 900-some page statute that makes it clear that federally-facilitated Exchanges are functionally the same as state-established Exchanges.  Even Justice Scalia should recognize that’s no way to interpret a statute.  As he explained just last year, “the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme."  Here, reading the words of the statute in context makes clear that tax credits should be available to all qualifying Americans.  Fourth Circuit Judge Andre Davis called the argument made by the law’s opponents “tortured” and “nonsensical.”