No En Banc Review of the Individual Mandate

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...

4 Responses

  1. Joe says:

    It’s something of a joke that people, including Jose Padilla, lingered in custody for years before SC review (if having it) while something might be heard before it’s (rather minor fiscal) effect even kicks in.

  2. Brett Bellmore says:

    No, not really. Effects one dude, vs effects 300 million. The Supreme court has precious little interest in justice for individuals.

  3. Shag from Brookline says:

    Brett’s concern that:

    “The Supreme court has precious little interest in justice for individuals.”

    could be resolved by requiring the Court to take/decide many more than 80 cases a year. This could provide full employment for the legal profession and expand he law school populations of academics and students.

    Query whether the decision of the Justice Department might suggest a desire on the part of the Obama Administration to indeed want the Court to take on the ACA cases as part of the 2012 campaign, perhaps placing pressure of a political nature on the Court, sort of a pre-emptive Bush v. Gore moment?

  4. Joe says:

    “effects 300 million”

    Right. Not protecting individual rights don’t effect us. Just effects one dude. Well, actually thousands. But, who’s counting? Still, no man is an island? Silly poet.

    Anyway, since the provision isn’t actually in effect yet, the whole point is that it doesn’t actually “effect” anyone yet in a way to make it ripe. Even if it was ripe, it wouldn’t actually effect 300 million people, except in that the overall system would be effected. The number of people directly effected — not wanting to pay and actually getting targeted for it, would be minimal. Millions aren’t even required to have insurance to avoid payment.

    But, again, that would be true when dealing people with much more serious claims like those suffering years of detention based on weak justifications.