NINOMANIA
:: A constitutional law blog by Scalia/Thomas fan David M. Wagner, M.A., J.D., Research Fellow, National Legal Foundation, and Teacher, Veritas Preparatory Academy. Opinions expressed here are those of the author and do not reflect those of the NLF or Veritas. :: bloghome | E-mail me ::
:: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 ::
Today my Con Law II class and I were honored with a class visit from Prof. Hugh Hewitt, Chapman University School of Law, and Blogger Extraordinaire. What a way to finish out (1) our discussion of modern substantive due process, and (2) the classroom part of the course!
:: David M. Wagner 12:36 PM [+] ::
...
:: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 ::
The American Center for Law and Justice was among the amici curiae petitioning the Court to grant cert on both issues, the individual mandate and severability.
:: David M. Wagner 3:32 PM [+] ::
...
Obamacare cert grant
Lyle Denniston's brief yet thorough summary is here. Of particular note, with comments as necessary:
On what issues did the Court not grant cert? " It opted not to review the challenges to new health care coverage requirements for public and private employers. It left untouched petitions by a conservative advocacy group, the Thomas More Law Center, and three of its members, and by Liberty University and two of its employees."
And what did it grant cert on?* Granted, the issue of “severability” of the insurance mandate from the other provisions of the law, if the mandate is nullified (the only question in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [docket 11-393] and question 3 in Florida, et al., v. Department of Health & Human Services [11-400] [11th Cir. - holding individual mandate unconstitutional, but severable -dw] ), cases consolidated for 90 minutes of oral argument.
* Granted, the constitutionality of the insurance mandate (question 1 in the government case, Department of Health & Human Services v. Florida, et al.), two hours of oral argument.
* Parties directed to brief and argue whether the lawsuit brought by the states challenging the insurance mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act (an added question in the government case, 11-398), one hour of oral argument. (That order appeared to be limited to reviewing whether that Act only bars states from challenging the mandate; the question of whether that Act bars private entities from challenging the mandate was raised in the Liberty University case, and the Court did not grant that petition.) (UPDATE: It appears, on a closer reading of the grants, that the Anti-Injunction Act will be explored as a limitation on challenges to the mandate by either private individuals or states.)
* Granted, the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (question 1 in the Florida, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Services case, 11-400); one hour of oral argument.
:: David M. Wagner 3:08 PM [+] ::
...
:: David M. Wagner 12:36 PM [+] ::
...
:: David M. Wagner 3:32 PM [+] ::
...
Lyle Denniston's brief yet thorough summary is here. Of particular note, with comments as necessary:
On what issues did the Court not grant cert? " It opted not to review the challenges to new health care coverage requirements for public and private employers. It left untouched petitions by a conservative advocacy group, the Thomas More Law Center, and three of its members, and by Liberty University and two of its employees."
And what did it grant cert on?
* Granted, the issue of “severability” of the insurance mandate from the other provisions of the law, if the mandate is nullified (the only question in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [docket 11-393] and question 3 in Florida, et al., v. Department of Health & Human Services [11-400] [11th Cir. - holding individual mandate unconstitutional, but severable -dw] ), cases consolidated for 90 minutes of oral argument.
* Granted, the constitutionality of the insurance mandate (question 1 in the government case, Department of Health & Human Services v. Florida, et al.), two hours of oral argument.
* Parties directed to brief and argue whether the lawsuit brought by the states challenging the insurance mandate is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act (an added question in the government case, 11-398), one hour of oral argument. (That order appeared to be limited to reviewing whether that Act only bars states from challenging the mandate; the question of whether that Act bars private entities from challenging the mandate was raised in the Liberty University case, and the Court did not grant that petition.) (UPDATE: It appears, on a closer reading of the grants, that the Anti-Injunction Act will be explored as a limitation on challenges to the mandate by either private individuals or states.)
* Granted, the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion (question 1 in the Florida, et al., v. Department of Health and Human Services case, 11-400); one hour of oral argument.
:: David M. Wagner 3:08 PM [+] ::
...
