Yes, it’s the first Monday in October, and the Supreme Court has started hearing arguments in new cases. And there are a few high-profile ones in front of the Justices immediately, including a big case involving campaign financing.
Nicole Huberfeld from the University of Kentucky explains the relationship between the federal government and the states in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, and why state cooperation in Medicaid expansion is even more important than the ACA Exchanges for some people.
Alexander Fullman previews the upcoming Supreme Court arguments in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a case that could lead to the spending of even more money in United States elections.
Our friends at the Harlan Institute and The Constitutional Sources Project have new season of the Virtual Supreme Court starting this fall.
In this commentary, Professor Neil H. Buchanan from George Washington University says political brinkmanship is much less important than resolving the debt ceiling question permanently—a lesson that may be lost on the Obama administration and others in Washington.
Can he or can’t he raise the debt ceiling citing the 14th Amendment? While only President Obama’s advisers know for sure, there are a lot of opinions in government, the media, and the academic world about this very interesting topic.
In this commentary, Tad DeHaven from the Cato Institute says that budgetary impasse may be obscuring the fact that the federal government’s long-term financial situation remains bleak.
As the Treasury Department rattled markets on Thursday with a recession warning about a potential government default, one controversial option remains off the table: raising the debt ceiling by invoking the 14th Amendment.
In the commentary, Doug Kendall and Tom Donnelly from the Constitutional Accountability Center say with both the legal left and the legal right fully engaged, the battle over the Constitution’s original meaning will be one of this term’s biggest stories in the new Supreme Court term.
Steven L. Schwarcz from Duke Law examines the consequences, both economic and legal, of a “technical” U.S. debt default, and why such a default today would be devastating.