The health care mess is on this agenda roster - blog editor
PREVIEW of United States Supreme Court Cases offers expert analysis of the issues, background, and significance of every case slated for argument in the Supreme Court.
As part of our comprehensive coverage, the following briefs are now available online:
Does imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year-old child convicted of homicide violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments?
Do the Fifth and Sixth Amendment principles established in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and its progeny, apply to the imposition of criminal fines?
May a Chapter 11 plan proposing an asset sale provide a secured creditor with the indubitable equivalent of its claim instead of allowing it to credit bid (i.e. bid its debt in lieu of cash)?
- Brief for Bankruptcy Scholars in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the Loan Syndications and Trading Association, the American Bankers Association, the Clearing House Association, the Commercial Finance Association, the Commercial Real Estate Finance Council, the Equipment Leasing and Finance Association, the Financial Services Roundtable, the Managed Funds Association, the Mortgage Bankers Association, and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association in Support of Respondent
- Brief for the United States in Support of Respondent
1. Did the Seventh Circuit violate this Court's precedent on harmless error in focusing its harmless error analysis solely on the weight of the untainted evidence without considering the potential effect of the error on this jury at all?
2. Did the Seventh Circuit violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by determining that the defendant should have been convicted without considering the effects of the district court's error on the jury that heard the case?
2. Did the Seventh Circuit violate the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial by determining that the defendant should have been convicted without considering the effects of the district court's error on the jury that heard the case?
1. Does the existence of probable cause to make an arrest bar a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim?
2. Did the Tenth Circuit err by denying qualified and absolute immunity to petitioners where probable cause existed for respondent's arrest, the arrest comported with the Fourth Amendment, it was not (and is not) clearly established that Hartman does not apply to First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims, and the denial of immunity threatens to interfere with the split-second, life-or-death decisions of Secret Service agents protecting the President and Vice President?
2. Did the Tenth Circuit err by denying qualified and absolute immunity to petitioners where probable cause existed for respondent's arrest, the arrest comported with the Fourth Amendment, it was not (and is not) clearly established that Hartman does not apply to First Amendment retaliatory arrest claims, and the denial of immunity threatens to interfere with the split-second, life-or-death decisions of Secret Service agents protecting the President and Vice President?
Is the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provisions of the Patent Protection and Affordable Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act 26 U.S.C. §7421(A)?
- Reply Brief for the Petitioners Regarding the Anti-Injunction Act
- Reply Brief for Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae Supporting Vacatur
If the Affordable Care Act's mandate that virtually every individual obtain health insurance is found to exceed Congress's enumerated powers, to what extent (if any) can the mandate be severed from the remainder of the Act?
- Reply Brief for State Petitioners on Severability
- Reply Brief for Private Petitioners on Severability
- Reply Brief for Respondents on Severability
Want to learn more about the health care challenges before the Court? Preview has published a Special Edition on the health care cases available for purchase in the ABA webstore.
1. Does Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate basic principles of federalism when it forces States into accepting conditions that it could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under the single largest grant-in-aid program, or does the limitation on Congress's spending power that this Court recognized in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), no longer apply?
2. May Congress treat States no differently from any other employer when imposing mandates as to the manner in which they provide their own employees with insurance coverage, as suggested by Garcia v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), or has Garcia's approach been overtaken by subsequent cases in which this Court has explicitly recognized judicially enforceable limits on Congress's power to interfere with state sovereignty?
2. May Congress treat States no differently from any other employer when imposing mandates as to the manner in which they provide their own employees with insurance coverage, as suggested by Garcia v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985), or has Garcia's approach been overtaken by subsequent cases in which this Court has explicitly recognized judicially enforceable limits on Congress's power to interfere with state sovereignty?
Did the District Court err in not sentencing the Defendant-Petitioner pursuant to the "Fair Sentencing Act of 2010" where Petitioner was sentenced on December 2, 2010, after the effective date of the FSA and the amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines mandated by the FSA?
No comments:
Post a Comment