October 14

  • Judge Vinson denied the U.S. government's motion to dismiss today in the Florida litigation. Vinson allowed the litigation to move forward on two issues: whether the individual mandate is constitutional under the commerce clause and whether the federal government may compel state expansion of Medicaid under its taxing and spending power.

October 5

October 4

September 28

  • For those of you making travel plans and organizing kids' birthday parties around the ACA litigation, here are the dates to keep in mind for the rest of 2010.
  • Florida update: As was widely reported in the media, the hearing before Judge Vinson on the United States' motion to dismiss took place on September 14. (Unfortunately, the transcript of that hearing is only available through a terminal at the courthouse in Pensacola, or by purchasing it from the transcription service. It will not be available through PACER until December 27.) You can see more about the judge's order here.

September 27

  • The parties each filed their respective memoranda in opposition to summary judgment in Virginia v. Sebelius. You can find these documents in the File Room.

September 20

September 14

  • Judge Vinson hinted at the end of oral arguments today that he would likely dismiss the US government's motion to dismiss in Florida v. HHS. A ruling is expected no later than October 14th and arguments on the merits are scheduled for December 16, The New York Times reports.

September 3

August 27

August 26

August 23

  • David Bernstein posted a recent piece on Volokh about the appropriateness of SCOTUS deference to the Executive and Congress when determining the constitutionality of federal law generally.

August 19

  • There has been a series of standing-related articles published by Ilya Somin on Volokh.com that have been added to the Opinion and Analysis page. (Part I, Part II, Part III.) Professor Somin discuss how Massachusetts v. EPA affects the standing doctrine as it applies to states and more generally analyzes the purpose and practical considerations of the standing doctrine.
  • A link to the recent event in Florida featuring Jack Balkin and Randy Barnett has been added to the Opinion and Analysis page.

August 4

August 3

  • Brad Joondeph had this initial reaction to Judge Hudson's August 2 ruling in Virginia v. Sebelius. More to come..

August 2

August 1, 2010

  • The fight continues. Missouri's Proposition C to declare the PPACA unconstitutional will be put to the voters this Tuesday. Professor Joondeph has seen this all before, "Reminds me of Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, and the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and South Carolina's stand against the tariff in 1832. I somehow thought these ideas had been so thoroughly repudiated that they would never again raise their heads. But here we are yet again. First principles of federalism, and the question of whether states have the independent authority to interpret the Constitution. Fascinating."

July 31

July 28

July 26

  • An interview with libertarian scholar Randy Barnett was published in the Wall Street Journal over the weekend, entitled: 'A Commandeering of the People'

July 23

July 22

July 21

July 20

  • On and off the wall - Randy Barnett responds to Jack Balkin's post in response to Randy Barnett's post, re: commerce clause and taxing powers (follow the thread on our Opinion and Analysis page)
  • Correction concerning the ACA's Medicaid coverage expansion on our Blog Updates
  • N.Y. Times editorial on the Kagan confirmation

July 19

  • Four new pieces were added to the Blog Updates page today.
  • Over the weekend Robert Pear wrote this interesting article about the Obama administration's changing stance in defense of the individual mandate.
  • Earlier today I mentioned this interesting post by Randy Barnett at The Volokh Conspiracy concerning the Justice Department's litigation strategy to defend the the ACA's individual insurance mandate as a valid exercise of Congress's power to tax under the General Welfare Clause. Jack Balkin has responded with this thoughtful post at Balkinization -- which not only discusses the merits of Barnett's claims, but also what they say about the nature of American Constitutional Development (that is, the process by which the meaning of our Constitution changes over time). Both posts deserve a close read.

    It should be noted that this is (at least) round three for Professors Barnett and Balkin on the subject of the ACA. They squared off here in the New York Times's Room for Debate blog, and they have co-authored opposing amicus briefs in Virginia v. Sebelius.