• June 26, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center

    The Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell is, of course, most important for its central holding that the Affordable Care Act's federal subsidies are available even on federally established health exchanges. The decision preserves health insurance subsidies for millions of people who have begun to benefit from them and avoids the ridiculous spectacle of taking the subsidies away based on four words ("established by the State") in a lengthy and complicated statute.

    But for those who, like me, are not health care experts but teach and write in environmental law, the majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts is principally worth studying for its approach to statutory interpretation. Especially for those following EPA's impending regulation of greenhouse gases from power plants under section 111 of the Clean Air Act, which has already drawn attacks based on a purported lack of statutory authority, the Court's opinion in King v. Burwell strikes some familiar (and possibly unpleasing) chords.

    First, the Court in King v. Burwell declined to apply the two-step Chevron framework. The Court did not say the Affordable Care Act is clear, and therefore Chevron deference doesn't apply. It did not say the Affordable Care Act is not clear, and therefore Chevron deference applies if the agency's interpretation is reasonable. These would have been the two standard moves for the Court to make. Instead, the Court simply held Chevron inapplicable. Granted, the Court did not – as the Reporter's headnote did – come out and baldly say "Chevron does not provide the appropriate framework here" (slip op. at 2). And granted, the Court pitched its language on Chevron in terms of "reason to hesitate" rather than outright rejection. But after explaining why this was an "extraordinary case" in which the Court has "reason to hesitate," the Court moved into its very own interpretation of the statutory provision at issue. The Court read the statute straight up, as it were, with no deference, or even subsequent reference, to the agency's thoughts on the matter.

  • June 26, 2015

    by Caroline Cox

    Robert Schapiro, member of the Board of Advisors for the ACS Georgia Lawyer Chapter, writes in The Washington Post that Justice Scalia's vision of making the Supreme Court a conservative stronghold is over.

    Bill Chappell reports for NPR on the Supreme Court’s ruling this morning that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry in all 50 states.

    ACS Board Member Linda Greenhouse writes at The New York Times about the ruling in King v. Burwell, arguing that the “whole exercise was unnecessary, the outcome too close for comfort” but worthy of celebration.

    Garrett Epps considers at The Atlantic how the Supreme Court narrowly saved the Fair Housing Act and disparate-impact claims.

    At Slate, Lisa Larson-Walker provides photos of the celebration of the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision outside of the Supreme Court.

  • June 26, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Joseph Thai, Watson Centennial Chair in Law and Presidential Professor, University of Oklahoma College of Law

    In the rearview mirror of history, today’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges will one day appear as obvious and inarguable to almost every American as other landmarks in our Nation’s journey toward equality. Like Loving v. Virginia (1967), which invalidated bans on interracial marriage, and Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which invalidated segregation, Obergefell will stand as a cherished American monument not just to the realization of greater equality, but also to the struggle and sacrifice to get there. And, as with perhaps the most powerful of American monuments ‒ the Lincoln Memorial ‒ Obergefell should not only turn our contemplation to the past, but moreover should direct our reflections to the future.

    In the eloquent words of Justice Kennedy, from an earlier decision on which today’s builds, “times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.” What will be those “certain truths” which we cannot see today, just as barely a generation ago a majority of the Court ‒ and no doubt most of the country ‒ deemed the claim of equality for same-sex couples to be, “at best, facetious”? I do not know.

    Perhaps future generations will find our failure to address crippling inequality of income and opportunity to be as willfully blind as past generations’ acceptance of separate but equal. Or perhaps our posterity will judge the demographics and conditions of mass incarceration to be as discriminatory and violative of human dignity as we do the machinery of justice under the Ancien Régime. But even if we had the benefit of tomorrow’s hindsight today, would we have the humility and courage to accept it? After all, Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) spoke from the future, and no one else signed on.

  • June 26, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Suzanne B. Goldberg, Director of Columbia Law School's Center for Gender and Sexuality Law, Herbert and Doris Wechsler Clinical Professor of Law, and Executive Vice President for University Life at Columbia University.

    By striking down state laws that shut same-sex couples out of marriage, the U.S. Supreme Court has put an end to a long and painful chapter in our country’s history and, at the same time, created an opening for a new wave of civil rights, safety, and justice advocacy.

    For so many years, with heightened intensity in the past two decades, states have denied same-sex couples access to marriage and the rights, recognition, and responsibilities that go along with it.  The terrible consequences are familiar: longtime partners kept from each other at hospitals, children and parents torn apart, humiliation and cost to people like the man at the heart of today’s decision, James Obergefell, whose marriage Ohio treated as nonexistent after Obergefell’s spouse, John Arthur, died in 2013.

    Familiar now, too, is the dramatic shift in the marriage equality landscape.  With increasing momentum, voters, legislatures, and courts around the country have reversed course on “defense of marriage” acts and rejected second-class citizenship for gay and lesbian couples.

    Without Supreme Court action, the nation was destined to maintain a discriminatory patchwork of marriage laws for years to come. The Court’s decision, in other words, reinforced the American tradition that courts, legislatures, and the general public each have a role in securing justice.

  • June 26, 2015
    Guest Post

    by Lara Schwartz, Professorial Lecturer, American University School of Public Affairs

    Much will be written, and is being written as we speak, on the Court’s historic decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which recognized same-sex couples’ fundamental and equal right to marry. As someone who teaches constitutional law to undergraduates, most of whom have never read a judicial opinion when they enter my class, I will say this: I will hold class outside the day we discuss Obergefell, because I will not need a blackboard. This opinion will be the easiest reading assignment I’ll ever give them.

    Of all of the concepts I teach them, they struggle most with the concept of standards of review. Fortunately for them, the term “standard” does not appear in Justice Kennedy’s soaring, poetic opinion. Nor does “rational basis,” “heightened scrutiny,” or “compelling interest.” “Dignity,” on the other hand, appears nine times. This is as it should be, because the case was so simple.

    In plain English, for any American who is parsing this opinion today, I offer the following:

    The question before the Court in Obergefell was: Are gay people really people? It has always come down to this: If gay people are like other people, there is no compelling, important, or even rational basis to deny them the rights accorded to others. If gay people are as fully human as others, living in equal families, then laws that label same-sex couples and their children as legal strangers are repugnant to our Constitution.