New England Journal of Medicine Comments On Court Challenge To Obamacare

New England Journal of Medicine

The U.S. Supreme Court's surprise announcement on November 7 that it would hear King v. Burwell struck fear in the hearts of supporters of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). At stake is the legality of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule extending tax credits to the 4.5 million people who bought their health plans in the 34 states that declined to establish their own health insurance exchanges under the ACA. The case hinges on enigmatic statutory language that seems to link the amount of tax credits to a health plan purchased “through an Exchange established by the State.” According to the plaintiffs in King, that language means that consumers who buy insurance through federally run exchanges don't qualify for subsidies. The Court's decision to hear the case without a split between appellate courts suggests that at least four justices harbor serious doubts about the IRS rule's validity. 

Supreme Court Accepts Challenge To Voting Rights Act

President Johnson signs the Voting Rights Act in 1965

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case filed by Shelby County, Alabama, challenging the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Shelby County is winless in two attempts to undo key sections of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

The county has asked the justices to hear its argument that the federal government no longer needs to closely monitor it and the rest of the South for signs of discrimination against minority voters. 

Breaking News: Obamacare upheld by court.

In a dramatic victory for President Barack Obama, the Supreme Court upheld the 2010 health care law today, preserving Obama’s landmark legislative achievement.

The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Roberts, who held that the law was a valid exercise of Congress’s power to tax.

The decision came as a sharp rebuff and disappointment to congressional Republicans, many of whom had expected the court to strike down at least some parts of the law.

Passage of the law in 2010 had come at a high political cost, with 14 House Democrats in competitive districts losing their seats in the 2010 elections in part due to their votes for the bill and six Democratic Senate candidates who’d voted for the bill also lost their elections in 2010.

Breaking News: Supreme Court Withdraws Decision in Southbridge Landfill Case

Ken O'Brien

I have just received the following email from Kirstie Pecci:

"I found out after the court was closed for the day that on 1/12/12 the SJC withdrew the decision they issued on 1/10/12.  I assume that this was to correct an administrative error -- remember these are the same folks who lost half of the volumes we submitted -- but I don't know why they withdrew it.  I will let you know as soon as I do."

The official notice of the withdrawal can be found at:
http://www.ma-appellatecourts.org/search_number.php?dno=sjc-10852&get=Search

At this time no further information is available.

UPDATE: (9:10 pm, 1/13/2012) Knowledgeable sources, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose, have speculated that another reason that the SJC may have withdrawn the decision is because the court may have erred in dismissing the merits of the case. The dismissal would still stand on the other grounds cited, but the court may conceivably reverse itself as regards the merits of the case.

I'll See Your Citizens United Case and Raise You Montana

Ken O'Brien

A surprisingly little noticed tremor rocked the legal world on the Friday before New Year's.

It came from of all places the big sky country of Montana. Montana, one of only a few states with more U. S. Senators than representatives in the U.S. House.

On a five to two vote, the Montana State Supreme Court challenged the U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case.

For those who need refreshing on that landmark case, I provide the following summary taken from Wikipedia: