On March 4, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in King v. Burwell. The question in this highly anticipated case is whether the Affordable Care Act authorizes the Internal Revenue Service to offer tax credit subsidies for individuals purchasing health insurance through federal exchanges.
To discuss the case, we have Prof. Jonathan Adler who is the Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Business Law and Regulation at Case Western Reserve University School of Law.
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.
On January 14, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wellness Int’l Network, Limited v. Sharif, which presents two questions. The first is whether a bankruptcy court has power under Article I of the Constitution to determine, where an issue of state property law is involved, that property in the debtor’s possession belongs to the bankruptcy estate. The second question is whether, notwithstanding the limits of Article I authority, the consent of litigants can permit a bankruptcy court to exercise Article III judicial power--and if so, whether a litigant's continued participation in litigation can constitute implied consent.
To discuss the case, we have Thomas Plank, who is the Joel A. Katz Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law.
On November 12, 2014, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, which was consolidated with Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama.
These cases ask whether Alabama's legislative redistricting plans classify black voters by race, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, by intentionally packing them into districts designed to maintain supermajority percentages produced when 2010 census data are applied to the 2001 majority-black districts.
To discuss the case, we have Mark Braden, who is Of Counsel at Baker & Hostetler.
On January 14, 2015, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Jennings v. Stephens. The issue in this case involves a federal habeas petitioner who sought relief based upon three theories of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court granted relief on two theories but rejected the third. The question in this case was whether the prisoner must file a separate notice of appeal and a motion for a certificate of appealability in order to rely upon his third theory (which the district court had rejected) in defending against the State’s appeal.
In an opinion delivered by Justice Scalia, the Court held by a vote of 6-3 that the prisoner in this case was not required to file a cross-appeal or seek a certificate of appealability to rely on his third theory on appeal, because the theory was a defense of a favorable judgment below on alternate grounds. Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the opinion of the Court. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion which Justices Kennedy and Alito joined. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded for consideration of Jennings' third claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.
To discuss the case, we have Kent Scheidegger, who is the Legal Director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation.