HLPR Online has just released two new student notes, Modern Approaches to Financial Crime by Andrew Chinsky and Electoral Reform After McCutcheon by Tom Watts. [Read more…] about Financial Crime and Electoral Reform!
Glitter Bomb Attack!
Jake Laperruque
Why can’t those darn Republicans stay focused on the issues? At a time like this, when there are No Jobsleft in the American economy, I want our GOP contenders to be discussing their plans to reduce unemployment. But one presidential candidate has found a more important issue, an issue that poses a threat to our basic safety.
And that threat is Glitter Bomb Attacks.
Volume 8-2
Volume 8-2 of HLPR is now posted on our website! See below for the articles!
Symposium: Smart on Crime
Foreword
Kamala D. Harris
Corporate Headhunting
Daniel C. Richman
A Public Accountability Defense for National Security Leakers and Whistleblowers
Yochai Benkler
California Prison Downsizing and Its Impact on Local Criminal Justice Systems
Joan Petersilia
Marijuana Legalization in Colorado: Learned Lessons
David Blake & Jack Finlaw
General Essays
Using Egg Freezing to Extend the Biological Clock: Fertility Insurance or False Hope?
Seema Mohapatra
Student Notes
Toward Institutional Reform of Intelligence Surveillance: A Proposal to Amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
Tyler C. Anderson
Redemption and Return on Investment: Using Eminent Domain in the Underwater Mortgage Fight
Alec Harris
The Third Party Exception: Reshaping an Imperfect Doctrine for the Digital Age
Rebecca Lipman
Why did the D.C. Circuit Strike Down an ACA Regulation?
By Tom Watts
Yesterday morning, the D.C. Circuit decided Halbig v. Burwell, and the Fourth Circuit decided King v. Burwell. They addressed whether the text of the Affordable Care Act permits subsidies for individuals who purchase insurance on the federal health care exchange. The D.C. Circuit decided that it did not, while the Fourth Circuit decided that it did. Vox has a summary of the cases, and the Lexington Herald-Leader has an excellent FAQ on the rulings.
The decisions split along partisan lines: all four Democratic appointees (three on the Fourth Circuit panel and one dissenting on the D.C. Circuit panel) voted to uphold the subsidies, and both Republican appointees (the majority on the D.C. Circuit panel) voted to strike down the subsidies. Both Republican appointees reasoned that the law authorized tax credits for insurance purchased on an “Exchange established by the State,” and the federal exchanges are not established by any state, so the plain text should prevail. One concurring Democratic appointee on the Fourth Circuit appealed to the plain text as well: the statute provides that, if a state fails to set up an exchange, the Secretary of Health and Human Services sets up “such Exchange” (i.e., the federal exchange is the “Exchange established by the State”). This leads to the opposite result — though both are appealing to the plain meaning of the text! [Read more…] about Why did the D.C. Circuit Strike Down an ACA Regulation?
Dangerous Precedents in Hobby Lobby
by Noah Marks
Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, holding 5-4 that religious owners of closely-held corporations are exempt from the contraception coverage requirement of the Affordable Care Act based on the 1993 Religious Freedom and Restoration Act.
Writing for the majority, Justice Alito strains to emphasize the limited scope of the decision, claiming that it applies only to closely held companies, only to contraception, and only to this preexisting accommodation. Justice Ginsburg, in dissent, cuts through the rhetoric and reveals the decision’s true, “startling breadth,” given the uncertainty of the accommodation’s legality, the quantity and variety of closely held corporations, and the Court’s ominously limited explicit assurance that racial discrimination is not covered by its logic. [Read more…] about Dangerous Precedents in Hobby Lobby
Free Exercise Clause Protection for Junk Science
By Tom Watts
Today, the Supreme Court decided Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. In this post, I examine an issue that the Court passed over: whether Hobby Lobby’s belief is actually religious. The Court presumed so, but their presumption was incorrect, and the issue is dispositive. This makes the Court’s decision wrong.
The First Amendment protects religious freedom, but it does not provide protection to non-religious beliefs. As the Supreme Court observed in Wisconsin v. Yoder (a case that RFRA explicitly approves), “[I]f the Amish [the religious plaintiffs in the case] asserted their claims because of their subjective evaluation and rejection of the contemporary secular values accepted by the majority, much as Thoreau rejected the social values of his time and isolated himself at Walden Pond, their claims would not rest on a religious basis.” [Read more…] about Free Exercise Clause Protection for Junk Science