ACSBlog

  • April 6, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Alan B. Morrison, the Lerner Family Associate Dean for Public Interest and Public Service Law; Professional Lecturer in Law, George Washington University Law School

    The area near the border between Texas and Mexico is a dangerous one, especially if you are a liberal Democrat from the North trying to deal with about 11.3 million individuals who are not lawfully in the United States, when the budget and the personnel to operate existing systems will not enable you to deport more than 400,000 a year. And judging from the February 16 opinion in Texas v. United States by District Judge Andrew Hanen, who sits in the Brownsville Federal Court located there, the courthouse is not a safe place to be either.

    Judge Hanen’s ruling, which runs 123 pages and was followed by a three-page preliminary injunction, has so much in it that it is impossible to do more in an essay like this than to summarize the key points. Meanwhile, the Federal Government has appealed and is seeking a stay in the Fifth Circuit, which will be heard on April 17. But first, let’s start with what Judge Hanen did and then take a look at the appellate posture. 

    The first step is to recognize who in the Executive Branch did what that precipitated the lawsuit. Although the popular notion is that it was a decision of President Obama that was being challenged, the President did not issue an executive order or anything else to bring about these changes: he left those to the Secretary of Homeland Security, Jeb Johnson.  This choice may actually matter here because the flaw that Judge Hanen identified – failure to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) – applies only to agency officials, which excludes the President. 

    Secretary Johnson, acting with at least the president’s blessing, if not at his direction, created a new program for parents of children lawfully in the United States – Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Aliens (DAPA) – and expanded the existing program for children – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).  Each has two major components.  First, they direct agency officials not to deport otherwise deportable aliens who fall into certain categories whose presence in the U.S. does not present significant dangers to the country, mainly parents of others authorized to be in the U.S. Second, they authorize the estimated 4.3 million individuals who fall in each category to receive federal work authorizations, which aliens need to obtain a legal job, as well as other benefits that flow from being authorized to work. The legal issues for the two parts are different, but before turning to those questions, there is the ever-present and often devilish issue of standing or, in lay language, what says you have a right to sue over this claim?

  • April 3, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Nicole Huberfeld, H. Wendell Cherry Professor of Law, University of Kentucky

    The Supreme Court recently decided Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, a low-profile case that could strike at the heart of the Medicaid program, a federal program that provides funding to states to facilitate mainstream medical care for low-income Americans. The Medicaid Act contains requirements that states must obey to receive federal funding, one of which is called the equal access provision, or "30(A)".  This provision requires states to ensure that “payments . . . are sufficient to enlist enough providers so that care and services are available under the plan at least to the extent that such care and services are available to the general population in the geographic area.” Historically, Medicaid payment rates are lower than private insurance or Medicare rates, despite the 30(A) requirement for sufficient payment.

    Additionally, the Medicaid Act does not provide explicit remedies for state failures in the program, other than authorizing the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to withdraw federal funding.  Thus, over the years, health care providers and patients have brought private enforcement actions under the civil rights statute known as Section 1983 or under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution to enforce statutory rights under the Medicaid Act.  Section 1983 actions have been limited by the Supreme Court.  Consequently, health care providers and Medicaid beneficiaries turned to the Supremacy Clause, seeking injunctive relief against states under the theory that states violate federal law when they fail to pay sufficient reimbursement rates to ensure equal access.  Two years ago, the Court nearly eliminated Supremacy Clause actions in Douglas v. Independent Living Center, but deference to agency decision making ultimately stayed the Court’s hand.

    Armstrong has done what the dissent in Douglas would have.  Justice Scalia’s majority opinion pointedly began by noting that states agree to spend federal funds "in accordance with congressionally imposed conditions."  The majority asserted that the Supremacy Clause provides a "rule of construction" but does not "create a cause of action" unless Congress "permits the enforcement of its laws by private actors."  The Court then determined that Congress intentionally excluded private enforcement from the Medicaid Act, and therefore providers cannot seek injunctive relief under the Supremacy Clause.

    This conclusion is incorrect.  Congress did not "foreclose" or "exclude" private enforcement from the Medicaid Act, either in 1965 when Medicaid was enacted, or when 30(A) amended the Act.  In fact, Congress debated preventing providers and beneficiaries from seeking relief in federal court but never added such language to the Medicaid Act.  Nevertheless, the majority concluded that the Secretary of HHS is solely responsible for enforcing 30(A) pursuant to her authority under 42 U.S.C. §1396c to withhold Medicaid funds from non-compliant states.  The Secretary is reluctant to withhold funds because it could harm beneficiaries, but the majority did not engage this quandary.  Instead, the majority called 30(A) judicially unmanageable – even though lower federal courts have guided states under 30(A) for years – and held that HHS must directly engage the states without federal courts’ interference.

    The majority circled back to Medicaid's status as a spending program in Part IV of its opinion, which may resurrect a dormant theory of spending programs as being like contracts and unlike other federal laws.  The Court often analogizes federal conditional spending programs to contracts under the Pennhurst decision, but in some cases (e.g. Barnes v. Gorman), Justices have suggested that the "third party beneficiaries" of federal spending programs have no enforceable rights.  The majority opinion reiterated this view of conditional spending statutes, noting that "contracts between two governments" cannot be enforced by beneficiaries of those contracts.  Not even the historical vision of strict dual sovereignty in federalism would have claimed that the federal government and the states are co-equal sovereigns, yet this dicta seems to embrace a vision of federalism that offers much more power to the states.  The majority opened the courthouse doors to further eroding of conditional spending statutes in the context of the Medicaid Act and perhaps beyond.

  • April 2, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced his intention to retire last week. The New Yorker considers Reid’s impact on federal judiciary, particularly his focus on federal judges rather than simply Supreme Court nominees in Senate deliberations.

    Senate Republicans remain slow to confirm judicial nominees. A comparison of recent trends to the final two years of George W. Bush’s presidency made by People for the American Way reveals just how problematic the delays are.

    John Michael Vazquez, one of President Obama’s most recent United States District Court judge nominees, “comes as the District of New Jersey faces three judicial vacancies and will soon have a fourth.” The New Jersey Law Journal provides a look at the nominee and the problem of judicial vacancies in New Jersey.

    There are currently 55 vacancies, and 23 are now considered judicial emergencies. There are 18 pending nominees. For more information see judicialnominations.org.

  • April 2, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Nina Totenberg of NPR reports on the recent Supreme Court ruling that private Medicaid providers cannot sue states for higher reimbursement rates to keep pace with rising medical costs.

    Monica Davey and Richard Pérez-Peña report for The New York Times that Indiana Republicans will revise the state’s controversial religious freedom law to prohibit discrimination.

    In the Huffington Post, Brianne Gorod writes that the battle in lower courts over same-sex marriage shows how important it is for the Supreme Court to recognize marriage equality.

    Following the ruling in Young v. UPS, George Gao and Gretchen Livingston of the Pew Research Center explain that working while pregnant is even more common than when the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was first made into law.

    At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern writes that the Supreme Court is considering whether to allow Louisiana to execute a man who claims to be intellectually disabled.

    Michael Li reports at the blog for the Brennan Center for Justice that the courts are likely to review Virginia’s congressional map.

  • April 1, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Leslie A. Shoebotham, Victor H. Schiro Distinguished Professor of Law, Loyola University New Orleans

    This week, the U.S. Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion held that monitoring a recidivist sex offender via an ankle bracelet device was a “search” for Fourth Amendment purposes.  In Grady v. North Carolina, the Court concluded that United States v. Jones controlled the case – i.e., attachment of an ankle bracelet and monitoring of the device to determine Grady’s location was a “search,” just as the government’s attachment and monitoring of a Global Positioning System (GPS) device onto Jones’s vehicle was a Fourth Amendment search.  The Court issued a summary reversal of the North Carolina Supreme Court’s non-search decision and remanded the case to the state courts to determine whether the search is reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances.

    Because of society’s strong interest in preventing child sexual abuse, as well as the overall contempt with which sex offenders are often viewed, it might be easy to assume that the North Carolina courts should find the search to be reasonable.  Don’t be lulled by the opprobrious nature of Grady’s prior crimes, however.  Based upon the facts in Grady, the ankle bracelet search at issue is premised on a future-looking ongoing search – a search that is conducted in the absence of probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, that a crime will be committed.  If this search is upheld as reasonable, it opens the door to attachment of devices and monitoring in countless other situations.