The Obama Generation and the Supreme Court

Gerard Magliocca

Gerard N. Magliocca is the Samuel R. Rosen Professor at the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Professor Magliocca is the author of three books and over twenty articles on constitutional law and intellectual property. He received his undergraduate degree from Stanford, his law degree from Yale, and joined the faculty after two years as an attorney at Covington and Burling and one year as a law clerk for Judge Guido Calabresi on the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Professor Magliocca has received the Best New Professor Award and the Black Cane (Most Outstanding Professor) from the student body, and in 2008 held the Fulbright-Dow Distinguished Research Chair of the Roosevelt Study Center in Middelburg, The Netherlands. He was elected to the American Law Institute (ALI) in 2013.

You may also like...

5 Responses

  1. This looks like a fascinating article! Good luck.

    What do you think of Jack Balkin’s blog post yesterday about Randy Barnett’s work on the social movement behind challenging the individual mandate?

    Some of my comments on that post here:

  2. Gerard Magliocca says:

    I think Balkin is on target, though he does omit the midterm elections and focus too much, probably, on elite opinion.

  3. Following on the Barnett and Balkin bit: Perhaps the Administration – in the guise of President Obama – should just calmly explain to the people that they should have known that “mandate” was just a manifestation of the Ivy League preference for using two syllables when one (“tax”) would do…

    When confronted with the idea that this mandate could be construed a tax on the middle class (and thus breaking one of his signature promises), President Obama categorically denied the mandate was a tax (“I absolutely reject that notion.”). Was he lying or was this so-called brilliant, Harvard-trained, constitutional scholar ignorant of the taxing argument?

  4. A.J. Sutter says:

    Have I missed something while living in Japan? Is there some reason why the midterm elections and the Court’s attitude toward Obama-era healthcare reform are being spoken of as if they’ve already happened (e.g., “the fate of health care reform can be judged…”)? Of course the abstract does hedge its bets (“Thus, right now there is no way to predict whether the individual mandate will be upheld, because the information vital to resolving that question is not yet available”) — but is the unpredictability of the future, especially concerning a Court challenge that hasn’t yet been brought, newsworthy?

  5. Gerard Magliocca says:

    Ah, well. You’ll just have to see the final paper and judge for yourself! (Of course, we’ll know the results of the midterm election by the time that this draft is finished.)