In Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., the Court is considering whether the Supremacy Clause gives Medicaid providers a right to sue to enjoin state action that they contend is preempted by federal law, in this case the equal access provision of the Medicaid Act.
You are here
Coleman-Bey v. Tollefson is a case involving the proper interpretation of the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act, a provision that implicates the Constitution’s guarantee of meaningful access to the courts.
De Leon v. Perry is a federal-court challenge to discriminatory marriage laws in Texas that prohibit same-sex marriage. In February 2014, District Court Judge Orlando Garcia ruled that these laws violate the plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection and due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Halbig v. Burwell involves a major challenge to a key component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), a landmark law dedicated to achieving the single goal of widespread, affordable health care.
Hotze v. Burwell involves a challenge to the individual and employer mandate provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). The plaintiffs in Hotze filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas arguing that these provisions violate the Constitution’s Origination Clause, which provides that “[a]ll Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other bills.” According to the plaintiffs, the ACA is a revenue-raising bill that did not originate in the House of Representatives.
On July 3, 2014, the California Legislature enacted Senate Bill 1272, placing an advisory question (known as Proposition 49) on the November 2014 ballot soliciting the views of California voters on whether to amend the U.S. Constitution to overturn the U.S Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Shortly thereafter, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association (“HJTA”) sought to remove Proposition 49 from the ballot, arguing that the Legislature had exceeded its authority in placing it there.
King v. Burwell is a challenge to a key component of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), a landmark law dedicated to achieving widespread, affordable health care. The plaintiffs in King filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, challenging the IRS rule on the ground that the ACA authorizes tax credits only for individuals who purchase insurance on state-established Exchanges.
Michigan v. EPA involves a challenge to the EPA’s Air Toxics Rule—a new regulation that addresses the risks associated with the emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) like mercury and arsenic from coal- and oil-fired power plants.
Obergefell v. Hodges, and three cases consolidated with it by the Supreme Court -- Tanco v. Haslam, DeBoer v. Snyder, and Bourke v. Beshear -- are federal-court challenges to state laws and constitutional amendments adopted by the voters of Ohio, Tennessee, Michigan, and Kentucky that prohibit same-sex couples from marrying and/or forbid the state from recognizing the marriages of same-sex couples lawfully entered into in other states.
Robicheaux v. Caldwell is a federal-court challenge to discriminatory marriage laws in Louisiana that prohibit same-sex marriage. On September 3, 2014, District Judge Martin Feldman of the Eastern District of Louisiana became the first federal judge to uphold a state’s discriminatory ban on same-sex marriage following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor.