David Gans, civil rights director at the Center for Constitutional Accountability, said, "Make no mistake, the practical effects of this ruling are enormous for ordinary Americans. The court today turned its back on the principle of access to our federal courts, leaving low-income people seeking access to health care to the vagaries and limitations of the executive branch."
You are here
"The practical effects of this ruling are enormous for ordinary Americans," said David Gans, civil rights director at the Constitutional Accountability Center. "The court today turned its back on the principle of access to our federal courts, leaving low income people seeking access to health care to the vagaries and limitations of the executive branch."
CAC appellate counsel Brianne Gorod called the decision "just the latest in a long line of Roberts Court cases that bend over backwards to allow corporations to enforce federal rights, while closing the courthouse doors to ordinary Americans and minorities seeking to enforce theirs."
The Constitutional Accountability Center, a D.C.-based think tank, recently analyzed Roberts’ record 10 years of serving as Chief Justice, with a close look at his environmental law record.
A U.S. Supreme Court case examining whether the Obama administration should have considered costs before issuing mercury pollution rules for power plants may come down to the meaning of the word "appropriate," said Tom Donnelly, counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center.
As 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner wrote last year in an opinion striking down same-sex marriage bans in Wisconsin and Indiana, the argument that tradition supports the bans “runs head on into Loving.” That conclusion should resonate with Chief Justice Roberts. And if Roberts is true to his confirmation hearing testimony, he should find in Obergefell that state laws prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying violate their fundamental right to marry.
"Much of the industry is already complying with this rule, the sky hasn’t fallen, and a decision invalidating it now would be highly disruptive,” said Tom Donnelly of the Constitutional Accountability Center, which filed a brief supporting the regulations.
“It won on cross-state air pollution and the bigger question in greenhouse gas regulations,” Donnelly said. “In both cases it was a cross-ideological coalition of the justices deferring to the EPA’s reasonable interpretation of the statute.”
The public health community, various members of the energy sector, several states, and the Supreme Court’s own precedents are all on the side of the EPA’s new standards. When the court decides this case in a few months, here’s hoping that a majority of the justices are, too.
At any argument, there are always tough questions for both sides, but the government has to have been happy about the questions that were asked during the King argument — as well as the answers that Verrilli was able to give.
"The context of the whole law is essential to resolving this case, and that principle was made clear" in the argument, said Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center. "If the court follows its own precedents that govern the reading of statutes, the Affordable Care Act's tax credits should be available nationwide."
Trevor Burrus and Elizabeth Wydra talked about the legal aspects Supreme Court justices would consider following oral argument in King v. Burwell. The case concerns the legality of the Internal Revenue Service extending tax-credit subsidies to health insurance plans sold through federally-administered exchanges as well as state-run exchanges.