E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
The Affordable Care Act Case and the Income Tax Case
JB
Over at the Atlantic Online, I discuss the odds that the Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate (still not very good) and the Medicaid expansion (even less likely). Marty Lederman has offered a splendid analysis of the individual mandate issues here, and, of course, readers of this blog know that Andy Koppelman, Neil Siegel, and I have gone over the doctrinal arguments many times before.
So for a change of pace, I point out that, if we use regime theory in political science, the most likely prediction is that a majority of the Justices will defend the basic commitments of the current constitutional regime, which is the New Deal/civil rights regime as inflected by the Reagan era. If they do, the act stands.
It is true that the Tea Party wants to stage a constitutional revolution that would change basic constitutional assumptions, but the Tea Party has not taken the White House yet, much less both houses of Congress, and there is only one Justice-- Clarence Thomas-- who seems to be close to its views. This is nothing like 1937 (or 1962).
If the Court did strike down the Affordable Care Act, the closest analogy from the standpoint of regime theory would be Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Company in 1895, which struck down the federal income tax. Gerard Magliocca has developed the very useful idea of a "preemptive" judicial opinion to explain cases like Pollock, and he has also argued that the Affordable Care Act case might be another example where the Court reaches out to nip unwelcome constitutional developments in the bud. I offer a few additional reasons why that might be so, although, ultimately, I don't think that is what is going to happen. But I have been wrong before! Posted
9:58 PM
by JB [link]