//  5/8/18  //  Uncategorized

That’s the title of an op-ed that we just published at the New York Times.

For those who are too poor to afford health insurance, Medicaid is a lifeline. This joint federal and state program doesn’t care whether you’re white or black, Christian or Muslim, Republican or Democrat, a city-dweller or a rural resident. In states that expanded their Medicaid programs under Obamacare, all you have to be is poor enough to qualify.

But maybe not in Michigan. In late April, the state Senate passed a bill that would require Medicaid beneficiaries to find work or else lose their coverage. The bill, now under consideration in the House of Representatives, has come under fire for harming the poor and disabled, as well as for imposing needless paperwork burdens on struggling families. More than 100,000 people may lose health insurance if it passes.

There’s another flaw in the bill, however, one that exposes it to serious legal challenge: It’s racially discriminatory.

We’re indebted to Nancy Kaffer of the Detroit Free Press and Danielle Emerson of the Great Lakes Beacon for first drawing attention to the bill’s racial disparities. In our op-ed, we explain why those disparities will make Michigan’s proposed approach vulnerable to legal challenge.

You can’t fit everything into an op-ed, so we'll have follow-up posts over the couple of days expanding on the legal theory and explaining why there’s no legitimate justification for the county-level exemption.

@nicholas_bagley & @EliNSavit


Versus Trump: Preventing The Prevention Of The Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program

5/17/18  //  Commentary

On this week's episode of Versus Trump, Easha, Charlie, and Jason discuss a series of recent rulings that have stopped the Trump Administration from revoking federal grants to entities that have been working to reduce teen pregnancy. Listen now!

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Disparate Impact and the Administrative Procedure Act

5/10/18  //  Commentary

The Supreme Court has held that there's no private right of action to enforce Title VI. But the civil rights laws can still form the basis of a challenge to a waiver allowing states to impose work requirements.

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School

Eli Savit

University of Michigan Law School

There’s No Justification for Michigan’s Discriminatory Work Requirements

5/9/18  //  Uncategorized

Low-income residents in Michigan’s cities are significantly less able to travel for work than people in rural communities. But Michigan legislators wants to exempt only the latter from their new work requirements. That's both immoral and illegal.

Eli Savit

University of Michigan Law School

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School