On March 2, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Ohio v. Clark. This case involves two questions. First, whether for purposes of the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause an individual’s statutory obligation to report suspected child abuse qualifies that person as a law enforcement agent, and second, whether a child's statements given outside of court to his daycare teachers count as “testimonial” evidence under the Confrontation Clause.
To discuss the case, we have Michael O’Shea, who is a Professor of Law at the Oklahoma City University College of Law.
"Have The President’s Executive Actions on Immigration Pushed “Prosecutorial Discretion” Past the Constitution’s Breaking Point
On Wednesday, March 4, 2015 the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in King v. Burwell, one of the most talked-about cases of the October 2014 term. At issue is whether the Internal Revenue Service may permissibly promulgate regulations to extend tax-credit subsidies to coverage purchased through exchanges established by the federal government under Section 1321 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Those challenging the statute argue that tax-credit subsidies can only be legally extended to those purchasing insurance in state-run exchanges – fewer than 20 states have created such exchanges. Professor Jonathan Adler, widely regarded as one of the architects of this most recent challenge to the affordable care act, attended the oral arguments and offered his thoughts to a live Teleforum audience.