Halbig v. Burwell was a 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.
You are here
On September 9, 2011, CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Harrison v. Gillespie. This case raises important questions about whether the Double Jeopardy Clause entitles a defendant to ascertain whether a jury has acquitted him of a more serious sentence when the jury indicates that it is deadlocked among lesser sentences.
CAC’s brief asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in this case. CAC argued that the text and history of the Double Jeopardy Clause supports allowing Harrison to poll the jury on the capital sentence given that it indicated it was no longer considering the death penalty and was only deadlocked as to the lesser sentences. The rulings to the contrary below frustrate Harrison’s right under the Double Jeopardy Clause to have his trial completed by the jury that heard the case, giving the State a constitutionally unjustified second chance to make its capital case.
In Hernández v. Mesa, the Supreme Court considered whether a U.S. Border Patrol agent can be sued for fatally shooting a Mexican teenager across the U.S.-Mexico border as a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.
The plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry challenged the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, a ballot measure that amended the California Constitution to prohibit same-sex couples in the state from marrying. When the state declined to defend Prop 8, its proponents stepped in to do so. In an historic ruling in August 2010, U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker held that Prop 8 violated the equal protection and due process rights of gay men and lesbians under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Prop 8 proponents appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
Hotze v. Burwell involved a challenge to the individual and employer mandate provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).
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.