Background
The article revolves around U.S. Supreme Court verdict in the case King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. ___ (2015), wherein through a 6-3 decision it upheld the provision of tax subsidies to qualifying people under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) not only in states with their own exchanges but also in the states with the federal marketplace. The plaintiffs in King had filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rule that federal tax credit is available to all financially eligible Americans whether they purchase insurance from a state exchange or a federal exchange, arguing that ACA (colloquially Obamacare) authorized tax credits only for those who purchased insurances from state exchanges. The attorneys who had represented the plaintiffs in King also brought a similar lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (“King v. Burwell (U.S. Sup. Ct.) | Constitutional Accountability Center,” n.d.). The District
…show more content…
Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc. 467 U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984), the Supreme Court had ruled that regulatory authority may be delegated to an agency by the U.S Congress and the agency’s regulations would carry the weight of law subject to passing of the two-part “Chevron test” according to which if the Congress does not directly speak to the precise question at issue as evaluated by the court and if the statute remains silent or ambiguous on the specific issue, the issue for the court would be whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. Based on the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, the statutory language had been ambiguous and therefore the IRS’ regulatory ruling would be given deference. The Supreme Court in its majority ruling however considered this test to have been failed since it believed that had the Congress wished to assign that question to the agency, it would have done so
In the year of 1836, the Court of Appeals of Virginia came to a decision in the case of Burley v. Griffith. This dispute began when Luke Griffith feared that one of his most valuable slaves, William Lee, was at risk to escape and flee the commonwealth of Virginia. Griffith’s suspicions and unease pushed him to place this particular slave in the Ohio County Jail under the custody of Sheriff Burley for safekeeping. This right to hold slaves in jail was granted in a statute that was passed nearly 12 years earlier in the state of Virginia. Griffith brought 3 counts against Burley in the Circuit Superior Court of Law and Chancery for Ohio County. One count stated that Griffith’s slave escaped due to negligence in the care of Burley. Another count
The Court apprehended that conducting a DNA buccal test as a part of the arrest process and it does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the test serves from a state that does not require a warrant for a search. The Court apprehended that determining an arrestee's character and criminal background is an essential part of the arrest process and that a DNA test is just as lawful as fingerprinting. Determining a suspect’s criminal background serves the legitimate state interest of determining what level of risk the person positions in the community and what circumstances should be established on his or her discharge from
Since the early settlers came to live in the United States, slaves were also shipped over from Africa. Since they had been brought over they had not been granted any rights nor were they treated any better after a couple hundred years. However, abolitionist groups became increasingly more popular in the 1840s and 1850s. Many slaves also began to run away and want their freedom, such as Dred Scott. The Dred Scott vs Sanford Supreme Court case decided that blacks were not entitled a U.S. citizenship and Congress cannot ban slavery in U.S. territories.
Nearly 100 years after the 15th amendment was ratified, vast disparities and blatant discrimination in voting process and practice were still pervasive, particularly in certain southern states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The 1965 Voting Rights Act (VRA) was enacted by congress to address this enduring inequity. Section 5 of the VRA requires that states meeting criteria set out in section 4(b) of the act, must obtain federal “preclearance” before enacting any laws that affect voting. Section 4(b) provides the conditions for the preclearance requirement as state or jurisdictions where less than 50% of minorities were registered to vote in 1964.
Plaintiffs in King v. Burwell filed a lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District for Virginia, challenging the IRS rule that tax subsidies are available to all eligible Americans regardless of whether they purchase insurance on a state-run or federally-facilitated Exchange. Among other things, plaintiffs argued that they will be economically injured by the IRS ruling because they will be required to choose between buying health insurance or paying the Minimum Coverage Provision penalty. Plaintiffs also claimed that the purpose of the ACA was to induce States to set up their own Exchanges by withdrawing tax subsidies from States that chose to allow the federal government to operate Exchanges on their behalf.
King v. Burwell (2015) is a Supreme Court case involving two parties, the petitioner David King and the respondent Sylvia Mathews Burwell the Secretary of Health and Human Services. In a brief background of the case according to Oyez, Congress passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in 2010 to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance and lower health care costs. ACA requires each state to establish an “exchange” in which people can purchase health care; and if a state chooses not to do so, the federal government establishes one through the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Another condition made by the ACA requires people to have to obtain the “minimum essential coverage” or pay a tax penalty unless it
Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent
On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court upheld Section 36B of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in the case King V. Burwell. The suit was brought under the argument that the plain language of the statute provided eligibility for tax credits only to those person in states with state-operated exchanges. The Supreme Court disagreed by a 6 to 3 vote saying the wording “…established by the State” was superfluous when reading within “the broader structure of the Act.” Therefore, it was affirmed the law’s federal subsidies to help individuals pay for health insurance are available in all states, not just those that have set up state exchanges.
In the 2013 Supreme Court case Shelby County v. Holder the state of Alabama filed a law suit against the federal government due to the unconstitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits certain districts from enacting new voting laws without the approval of the federal government while Section 4b prohibited them to make changes to voting laws based on race or social status. These laws were enacted due to discrimination and violence minorities were facing during the 1960’s. After the Supreme Court reviewed the case Justice Roberts delivered the concurring opinion in which they ruled the act as unconstitutional with the justification that conditions are not the same as they were in
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), also referred to as the "Affordable Care Act" or "ACA" or "Obama Care") is the major health care reform bill passed into law on March 23, 2010. The debates surrounding the PPACA have been volatile at times, and continue to be the most intense public examinations of any piece of legislation in our recent history. The affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is ripe for repeal. For the American public, there are ample reasons for dissatisfaction: higher costs; arbitrary and sometimes absurd rule-making; bureaucratization of an already overly bureaucratized sector of the economy; incompatibility with personal freedom and religious liberty; enormous spending and heavy taxation; and widely acknowledged design flaws, evident in the ACA’s hopelessly complex and unworkable subsidy schemes, boondoggle bailouts, and collapsing co-ops. Nonetheless, other ACA legal challenges were still facing the healthcare law. In December 2015, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court arguing against the constitutionality of the employer insurance mandate within the Affordable Care Act. The law contains a number of experiments designed to drive down health costs, such as Accountable Care Organizations. The whole idea is to move the system away from paying for volume and toward paying for value. We still don't know whether that will happen. But it's fair to say that reducing the cost of health care will make it easier to expand coverage. The nation’s gains in health care coverage and delivery system design over the last several years have made measurable differences in the lives of millions of Americans. There are many ways to achieve a high-performing health system. But it’s critical that the nation remain committed to this goal.
On June 28, 2012, The Supreme Court ruled the Federal Government does not have the constitutional right to sanction an individual to buy health insurance, but declared that the states do have the right to place a tax on citizens that do not carry insurance. This ruling is in response to President Obama’s Patient Protection and Healthcare Act of 2010. Passed on March 23, 2010, President Obama’s Reform Act mandates Texas, as well as the nation, to provide Medicaid funding to all individuals that are uninsured by 2014. As well as expanding Medicaid, it will provide exchanges, which are pools of insurance companies a previously uninsured person can pick
In 2012 the Supreme Court resolved a case where Florida sued the Federal Government over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Florida believed the Federal Government had overstepped its allocated powers granted to it by the constitution. Specifically article 1, section 8, known as the Spending Clause, which gave the government the power to grant money to the states and tell the states what to do with said money (Jefferson, 1787, p. 25). Florida’s issue arose in the fact that the Affordable Care Act provided no additional funding and the government has no right to tell the states how to spend their own wealth.
Failure is an essential step to success. This is what my life motto has become, for no failure is wasted effort, but a mere prelude to success. Back in Junior year one of our biggest projects to get done was a Graduation Worthy Portfolio Presentation (GWPP), which, as the name suggests, is a presentation that counts as a graduation requirement. The presentation entailed my argument for King v. Burwell, and how the decision has improved U.S. healthcare.
The concept of providing basic healthcare services to individuals in need has undergone an agonizing transition, from a luxury once only afforded by the affluent to a basic human right granted to citizens of every economic station, and the recently enacted Affordable Care Act (ACA) was designed to finalize this ethical evolution. Reflecting perhaps the bitter political enmity currently consuming the nation's once cherished democratic process, Republican legislatures in states throughout the union have bristled at the ACA's primary provisions, threatening all manner of procedural protestation as they attempt to delay and derail the bill's eventual implementation. One of the most intriguing aspects of the sprawling, thousand page law, however, has been the stipulation that individual states will be given a choice to either accept federal funding to expand their statewide Medicaid roster, or to forfeit all federal funding for that program in perpetuity. The role of government in monitoring and regulating the healthcare industry has been long debated, and the bitterly contested passage of President Obama's ACA, a law aimed at revising the country's health insurance system through the creating of a federal health insurance exchange to facilitate increased competition among insurers, has rekindled the debate over who holds the ultimate responsibility for regulating the care provided by hospitals, community clinics, and private practices.
“In 2008, police arrested an estimated 2.1 million persons under the age of 18. The majority of these juveniles (67%) were referred to juvenile court jurisdiction. The police used discretion to handle and release a portion (22%) of these youths” (Lopez 2016). That means that 273,000 juveniles were prosecuted and punished as adults, some even receiving life in prison. This begs the question should juveniles, regardless of offense, be tried as adults?