Cornell University law professor Sherry F. Colb comments on the idea of a sexual advance directive—a proposed legal device that could provide consent or designate an agent to provide consent in advance of an anticipated persistent period of legal incompetence. Colb explains how a sexual advance directive purports to work, describes some limitations of it, and proposes an alternative solution that addresses those limitations.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda warns against the California bill recently introduced in the state senate that would allow physician-assisted suicide. Rotunda cites other jurisdictions in which physician-assisted suicide is permissible in arguing against the bill’s passage.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda critiques the suggestion that President Obama simply disregard the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision if it rules that the Affordable Care Act does not allow the federal government to subsidize federal health exchanges.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses the statutory interpretation question at issue in the U.S. Supreme Court case King v. Burwell, which could resolve the fate of Obamacare.
Cornell University professor Michael Dorf discusses last week’s oral arguments in King v. Burwell, the case in which the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide the fate of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Dorf contends that there are three distinct arguments through which the government could successfully defend the law if the Court finds the language of the statute unclear.
Cornell University law professor Sherry Colb discusses a Michigan pediatrician’s decision not to see as a patient the infant child of a lesbian couple.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton calls upon state legislators to repeal the laws that permit parents to refuse to vaccinate their children to the children’s detriment as well as to the detriment of the public.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf explains why parents who choose not to vaccinate their children include people from both the libertarian right and the liberal left.
U.C. Davis law professor Vikram David Amar continues his discussion on how federalism cuts against the challengers to the Obamacare statute in King v. Burwell. In this second of a two-part series, Amar addresses some counterarguments to his thesis that federalism principles bolster the federal government’s position in that case.
U.C. Davis Law professor Vikram David Amar explains how the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2012 decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius—upholding Obamacare as a proper exercise of Congress’s tax powers and striking down a significant expansion of Medicaid—weakens the case of subsequent challengers to Obamacare in King v. Burwell.
George Washington University law professor and economist Neil Buchanan explains why recent events detracting from the Affordable Care Act might lead to serious consideration of a single-payer health care system. Buchanan includes in his discussion the Supreme Court’s recent decision in NFIB v. Sebelius, a careless statement by economist Jonathan Gruber, and the upcoming challenge of it before the Supreme Court, King v. Burwell.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses some of the issues that will likely arise when the U.S. Supreme Court considers the statutory challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, in the upcoming case King v. Burwell.
Justia columnist and former counsel to the president John W. Dean comments on the present Ebola panic and politicians’ reactions to it. Dean critiques these reactions as not based on medical knowledge and instead serving only to deter people from assisting to contain the international epidemic.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton explains how extreme religious liberty undermines the ability of the government to quarantine individuals with Ebola or other highly infectious diseases.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the constitutional basis for, and limitations on, the quarantine of individuals for public health purposes, such as to prevent the spread of Ebola.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses two federal appeals courts’ recent diverging decisions over Obamacare subsidies. Dorf contrasts the method of statutory interpretation used by the majority of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which struck down the subsidies, with that of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which upheld them.
Cardozo Law professor Marci Hamilton comments on a recent statement by the Wisconsin Insurance Commissioner that purportedly applies the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. to that state’s law. Hamilton critiques the interpretation as misunderstanding the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and calls upon state courts not only to correctly understand the scope of the Hobby Lobby decision, but to reject the Hobby Lobby majority’s reasoning when interpreting their own state’s laws.
Guest columnist and Touro Law Center professor Rodger Citron comments on the litigation in New York over a rule prohibiting food-service establishments from serving sugary drinks in sizes larger than sixteen ounces. Citron describes the arguments put forth by each side and explains why the critical issue is whether the Board of Health's has the authority to promulgate such a rule.
Justia columnist, George Washington law professor, and economist Neil Buchanan explains why, now that the ACA’s enrollment target has been met—which means that the health care law will not collapse from lack of adequate participation—it is time for America to move on to a single-payer healthcare system in the near future.
Justia guest columnist, UNLV law professor, and visiting UC Irvine law professor Leslie Griffin comments on the recent controversy regarding Notre Dame, of which she is an alumna. Professor Griffin comments on Notre Dame’s arguments, which include one relating to the Catholic concept of scandal, and another that postulates that whenever Notre Dame signs the form objecting to contraception, the complaint triggers the provision of free objectionable coverage to Notre Dame’s employees in a manner contrary to its beliefs. Notre Dame also argues that by signing the objection, it facilitates contraception, and, by doing so, it will lead many to think that Notre Dame condones these services, and hence undermines its role, as a Catholic educational institution, to educate others on a matter of religious and moral significance. Griffin offers strong counterarguments, both logical and legal, to Notre Dame’s contentions.