WashU Expert: Supreme Court likely to uphold Obamacare tax credits, avoid chaos
As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to announce its decision in a lawsuit that threatens federal health insurance subsidies for more than 6 million Americans, health care economist Timothy D. McBride, PhD, professor in the Brown School at Washington University in St. Louis, is confident the high court will side with the Obama administration. If the court decides otherwise, low-income residents in many states will have little access to affordable healthcare, he warns.
WashU Experts: Texas abortion clinic ruling offers chance to clarify ‘undue burden’ standard
Does a recently upheld Texas abortion law impose an “undue burden” if it forces some women to drive as much as 600 miles to obtain an abortion at a state-approved clinic? That’s a question the U.S. Supreme Court may be asked to decide, suggests legal experts at Washington University in St. Louis.
Supreme procrastination: Why nation’s highest court puts off big decisions until the last moment
Several “blockbuster” cases — including freedom of speech, religious freedoms in prison, pregnancy discrimination and a possible decision on gay marriage — are on the docket for the Supreme Court, which begins its new session this month. But don’t expect any decisions until next June. New research led by the School of Law finds big cases are disproportionately decided just before the court’s summer recess.
‘Hobby Lobby’ decision will have far-reaching effects, unintended consequences
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case is the corporate equivalent of the road to Damascus, says Elizabeth Sepper, JD, associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. “Many more corporations will find religion to opt out of regulation that affects their bottom line,” Sepper says. “Before Hobby Lobby, businesses lost claims to fire pregnant women, refuse to promote non-Christians, discriminate against gays, and pay below the minimum wage. “After Hobby Lobby, they seem likely to succeed.”
SCOTUS decision dooms campaign finance regulation as we know it
The U.S. Supreme Court, in the McCutcheon v. FEC decision, removed the cap on the number and amount of donations a person can give during political campaigns. Gregory Magarian, JD, election law expert and professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, says that this decision will have a major impact on campaigns – a much bigger impact than the earlier Citizens United campaign finance decision. This decision “marks then end of campaign finance regulation as we know it,” says Magarian.
New SCOTUS brief argues Hobby Lobby’s request is unconstitutional
The popular arts and crafts store Hobby Lobby is seeking a religious exemption from covering certain forms of contraception it would be required to provide under the contraception mandate of the Affordable Care Act. The case is headed to the Supreme Court, with oral arguments set to begin this spring. “Granting the exemption would shift the cost of accommodating Hobby Lobby’s religious exercise to employees who do not share its beliefs,” argues Elizabeth Sepper, JD, associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis. “Such cost-shifting violates the Establishment Clause.” Sepper is one of several experts who have authored an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court arguing the unconstitutionality of Hobby Lobby’s request.
SCOTUS preview: First Amendment expert on legislative prayer and the “mistakes of the past, present and future”
The Supreme Court is expected to rule this spring on whether prayers before town hall meetings violate the First Amendment clause that prohibits the establishment of religion. John Inazu, a First Amendment expert and professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, highlights one dimension of the litigation often unaddressed by commentators: what he calls the “mistakes of the past, present and future” adopted by proponents of legislative prayer.
SCOTUS preview: First Amendment expert supports rights to speech, assembly in Supreme Court brief
Anti-abortion groups are well known for demonstrating and sidewalk counseling at women’s reproductive health facilities, but a Massachusetts statute criminalizes even peaceful expression on public sidewalks near these clinics. An upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case will determine the constitutionality of Massachusetts’ selective exclusion law, which applies only to streets and sidewalks near reproductive health-care facilities. “If Massachusetts can close off the sidewalks surrounding reproductive health centers to peaceful expressive activity, then the government can prohibit expression in a wide range of circumstances,” says John Inazu, JD, First Amendment expert and associate professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis.
Immediate effect of DOMA decision profound
The Supreme Court today struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and rejected a challenge to a lower court ruling that invalidated California’s ban on same-sex marriage, known as Proposition 8. Gregory Magarian, JD, constitutional law expert and professor of law at Washington University in St. Louis, says that the immediate effects of these decisions for same-sex couples will be profound. “The demise of DOMA means that the federal government must treat same-sex couples, legally married under state laws, just like opposite-sex married couples for purposes of federal benefits, tax status, etc,” he says. “The nullification of Proposition 8 appears to make marriage available to same-sex couples in the nation’s largest state, under a prior marriage law that Proposition 8 had purported to invalidate.”
SCOTUS decision kills “most successful weapon” against racial discrimination in voting
The Supreme Court’s decision in Shelby County v. Holder
effectively kills the most successful weapon our nation has ever
produced against racial discrimination in voting, says constitutional
and election law expert Gregory Magarian, JD, professor of law at
Washington University in St. Louis. He says the Court’s decision reflects a victory
for two big ideas: state power, at the expense of racial justice; and
judicial power, at the expense of democracy.
View More Stories