From Big Waiver to Waiver Unlimited

6/26/17  //  Quick Reactions

Perhaps the biggest concern with BCRA is that state waivers could degrade the financial protections available for employer-sponsored coverage

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School

An Open Letter to Sen. Ben Sasse

6/21/17  //  Latest Developments

I recently wrote an open letter to Senator Ben Sasse regarding the American Health Care Act. Here's the conclusion.

Richard Primus

University of Michigan Law School

Congressional Standing Is Not an All-or-Nothing Proposition

6/19/17  //  Commentary

It is perfectly consistent to think the House lacks standing in House v. Price, but that members of Congress have standing to sue for Foreign Emoluments Clause violations.

Brianne J. Gorod

Constitutional Accountability Center

Why Process Matters: Health Care Reform Edition

6/9/17  //  Commentary

While attention is drawn to Comey’s very public hearing, something else is happening, largely in secret. The Senate is moving forward with a health care bill that will likely take coverage from tens of millions of Americans, and that will likely cut taxes for the wealthy on the backs of the poor.

Rachel Sachs

Washington University Law School

Versus Trump: "What About Congress? + Steven Wu"

6/8/17  //  Commentary

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Easha, Jason, and Charlie discuss Congress's role and powers in investigations of the Executive. Then, Jason talks with Steven Wu, a Deputy Solicitor General in the Office of New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, about the case against Trump University, the active role of states in recent years, and other issues in which New York is adverse to the President. Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Charlie Gerstein

Civil Rights Corps

Moral Convictions And The Contraception Exemptions

6/5/17  //  Commentary

Yet another major flaw in the draft contraception rule, which would not only allow employers to drop contraception coverage for *religious* reasons, but would also (without any lawful basis) allow employers who have *moral* objections to do the same.

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School

Trump and Pence Invoke Conscience to Block Contraception, Contrary to Our Religious Liberty Tradition

6/4/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

Regulatory changes that the Trump-Pence Administration reportedly plans to implement extend well beyond our religious liberty traditions (and beyond accommodations authorized by the Supreme Court)

Douglas NeJaime

UCLA Law School

Reva Siegel

Yale Law School

Trump’s Latest Affront To Women, and to the Constitution

6/2/17  //  In-Depth Analysis

A draft of the Trump Administration's revised contraception mandate has been leaked. If implemented, this policy would weaken civil rights for women. Moreover, the plan could violate the Establishment Clause by providing a religious accommodation for some private citizens only by shifting costs to others who may not share their beliefs.

Nelson Tebbe

Brooklyn Law School

Micah Schwartzman

University of Virginia School of Law

Richard C. Schragger

UVA School of Law

The New Contraception Rule Is Procedurally Flawed

6/1/17  //  Commentary

The Trump Department of Health and Human Services has proposed a massive expansion of the program that provides employers and exemption from providing their employees with contraceptive coverage. But they have not sought notice-and-comment on the rule, and that could be a major problem.

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School

Versus Trump: The Healthcare Episode

6/1/17  //  Commentary

On a new episode of Versus Trump, Take Care's podcast, Easha and Jason dig into healthcare for the first time, as they take a deep dive into the House v. Price litigation that addresses whether certain payments to insurers under the Affordable Care Act have been properly appropriated. They also debate immigration rhetoric vs. action and discuss drug testing for unemployment benefits. Listen now!

Easha Anand

San Francisco

Standing in for the Executive: The Latest in House v. Price

5/26/17  //  Commentary

States standing to defend a federal law against Congress and the President when “lives are at stake”? Just the latest, fascinating turn that federalism has taken in the Age of Trump, however brief that age may be.

Seth Davis

U.C. Irvine School of Law

An Update in House v. Price: When Inaction Masks Turmoil

5/24/17  //  Quick Reactions

Insurance companies are filing their applications for 2018 plans and rates now, with the last deadline in some states coming on June 21, and with many having passed already. If you’re an insurer and you don't know what the rules of the game will be, how can you play it?

Rachel Sachs

Washington University Law School

Taking the Nuclear Option Off the Table

5/23/17  //  Commentary

Last Thursday, fifteen states and the District of Columbia moved to intervene in House v. Price, the case about the ACA’s cost-sharing reductions. At the same time, they asked the court to hear the case promptly. This is a bigger deal than it may seem, and could offer some comfort to insurers that are in desperate need of it.

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School

Healthcare Reform Part V: Don’t Forget About HHS

5/5/17  //  Commentary

Waivers granted by HHS are critical to the design of the Republican healthcare legislation and may have a huge effect on how it works in practice. Here's a preliminary analysis of how HHS Secretary Tom Price is likely to exercise his discretion with respect to waivers.

Rachel Sachs

Washington University Law School

The Michigan Morsel

5/4/17  //  Commentary

To corral some last-minute votes, the House leadership has endorsed the Upton amendment to the American Health Care Act. That’s a shame: the amendment works at cross-purposes with other parts of the AHCA, is arbitrarily structured, and is ambiguous on a key point. It’s another example of the perils of doing health policy on the fly.

Nick Bagley

University of Michigan Law School