Supreme Court

William Levin: The road to repeal

Featured image William Levin is a graduate of Yale Law School. He writes to comment on the Obamacare case pending before the Supreme Court. He argues that “the road to Obamacare repeal runs through through King v. Burwell.” His column makes assumptions that are subject to reasonable argument, such as Chief Justice Roberts’s ultimate position in the current case and the soundness of the Chief Justice’s position in what he calls Obamacare »

It’s Not Just Dumb, It’s Krugman Dumb!

Featured image We have written here and elsewhere about the King v. Burwell case, in which a panel of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Affordable Care Act allows the federal government to subsidize participants in the federal Obamacare exchange as well as the state exchanges. In Halbig v. Burwell, decided at the same time as King, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals went the other »

Gruber strikes again

Featured image Jonathan Gruber, the MIT professor who was a key architect of Obamacare, may also be a central figure in the court battle over whether Obamacare subsidies are allowed for participants in the federal health insurance exchange. That’s because, as noted here, Gruber has provided the rationale for the statutory language that bars such subsidies. He thus undermines Team Obama’s argument that the statutory language can’t possibly mean what it says. »

How will the Supreme Court rule in the latest Obamacare challenge?

Featured image As Steve has noted, the Supreme Court will review the Fourth Circuit’s decision in King v. Burwell. That decision holds that the provision of Obamacare authorizing tax credits for insurance purchased on an exchange “established by the State under section 1311” also authorizes tax credits for insurance purchased on an exchange established by the federal government. It seems clear that four Justices are prepared to reverse the Fourth Circuit and »

Breaking: Supreme Court to Take Up Another Obamacare Challenge

Featured image As Paul discussed at the time, the DC Circuit Court’s Halbig ruling striking down Obamacare’s state subsidies would be unlikely to survive an en banc rehearing with all of the new judges that Harry Reid enabled Obama to appoint.  And the 4th Circuit upheld the state subsidies in a separate case. But this afternoon the Supreme Court announced that it won’t wait for the DC Circuit’s rehearing, and will take up an »

Time for Payback

Featured image It is too early to count on a Republican Senate 15 hours from now, but haven’t you noticed all the articles in the last couple of weeks from liberals saying, “Oh, won’t it be terrible for Republicans if they have a Senate majority!  Just think of all the problems they’re going to have!”  These articles do offer their comic amusement. There is one from this genre worth noting: Jeffrey Rosen’s »

Supreme Court declines to review same-sex marriage cases

Featured image The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to review lower court rulings that allow same-sex marriage in Virginia, Utah, Oklahoma, Indiana and Wisconsin. It would have required the votes of only four Justices to decide to review the issue, but the votes were not to be had. Nor did any Justice write a dissent from the denial of review. What does today’s decision not to decide mean. Ed Whelan argues, »

Did Marriage Dodge a Bullet Today?

Featured image This morning the U.S. Supreme Court issued a series of orders, including a long list of cases in which certiorari was denied. This means that the Court will not hear those cases, and the rulings from the courts of appeal will stand. Among the cases the Court declined to hear were those from three circuits that have found a constitutional right to gay marriage. This means that gay marriage will »

Pelosi does Hobby Lobby

Featured image John discusses Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin’s slightly misguided explication of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision here. According to Durbin, the Supreme Court had gone into business banning certain contraceptives. John cited Ed Whelan’s devastating critique of Durbin’s explication. John questions Durbin’s intelligence, but I think this is a bit unfair. Durbin is simply doing his job, disseminating Democratic Party talking points that seek to rile up the low-information »

Dumb Dick Durbin Demagogues Hobby Lobby

Featured image We have speculated from time to time on whether Dick Durbin is the dumbest Democrat of them all. It is a hotly contested title, but he is definitely a contender. Most recently, Durbin has been discoursing on the Hobby Lobby decision. At NRO’s Bench Memos, Ed Whelan takes him apart: Democratic senator Richard Durbin contends that the Hobby Lobby ruling violates the “fundamental premise” of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), which »

Is Administrative Law Unlawful? (3)

Featured image Philip Hamburger is the Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School and the author, most recently, of Is Administrative Law Unlawful? Professor Hamburger argues that administrative law is unlawful, unconstitutional and illegitimate. Drawing on English legal history, he contends that the regime of agency government resurrects the prerogative power once claimed by English kings and places it in the executive branch of the United States government. »

Legislation trumps administrative regulation, left irate

Featured image Lost in the sound and fury coming from the left in reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in Hobby Lobby is this point, made in a letter to the San Francisco Chronicle by Emmett C. Stanton: People choose to forget that when Obamacare passed so narrowly, it was in large part because the administration misled pro-life Democrats about its abortion and abortifacient coverage. The legislation never would have passed if »

Left’s Reaction to Hobby Lobby: Let’s Go Crazy! [Updated]

Featured image Virtually no liberals have read the Hobby Lobby decision or have any idea what the Supreme Court actually ruled, but that hasn’t prevented them from making fools of themselves. Since the Court issued its ruling yesterday morning, it has been wall-to-wall hysteria on the Left. This video montage, compiled at Grabien, is an entertaining look at the Left’s response to Hobby Lobby. Get out the popcorn: MSNBC was hardly any »

Hobby Lobby and the shape of things to come

Featured image What are the implications of today’s Hobby Lobby decision for challenges by non-profit religious institutions, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, to Obamacare’s mandate that they facilitate the free distribution of contraceptives and abortifacients to any of their employees who desire them? Professor Mark Rienzi, who together with the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty has been litigating these sorts of religious liberty cases against the Justice Department, offers »

Public employee unions not out of the woods yet

Featured image Conservatives hoped that the Supreme Court would take the opportunity presented by Harris v. Quinn to strike down a 1977 decision holding that full-fledged public employees “who choose not to join a public-sector union may nevertheless be compelled to pay an agency fee to support union work that is related to the collective-bargaining process.” The Supreme Court did not do so. This does not mean, however, that the 1977 decision »

The Funniest Left-Wing Reactions to Hobby Lobby So Far

Featured image As Paul and I have already noted, the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision is carefully circumscribed and may or may not ultimately amount to much. (“Meaningless,” is now appellate lawyer Mark Arnold described the decision.) But that hasn’t stopped lefties (hardly any of whom have actually read the opinion, of course) from going crazy. The funniest reactions so far have come from lefties responding to the SCOTUSblog’s Twitter feed. These »

Supreme misery for the left [or not]

Featured image The Supreme Court today issued its final two decisions of the term. One of them constitutes a clear defeat for the left. The other looks like a minor defeat. In the Hobby Lobby case, the Court held that closely held corporations cannot be required to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. The five center-right Justices formed the majority for that proposition. In Harris v. Quinn, the Court, again with the »