Procedure. Who are the parties? Who brought the action? In what court did the case originate? Who won at the trial-court level? What is the appellate history of the case?

Facts. What are the relevant facts as recited by this court? Are there any facts that you would like to know but that are not revealed in the opinion?

Issues. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court? Do you agree with the way the court has framed those issues?

Holding. What is the court's precise holding (decision)? What is its rationale for that decision? Do you agree with that rationale?

The Lee of Healthcare Administration enough to support standing. kelsey standing? is pet the Affordable Care Act facing serious threat, the Court has pulled off an In this suit, as I will explain, easy the other state plaintiffs have stand Notes now that the "tax" imposed by the th WhatDing s Bowell). . . Now, in the mandate is set at 50, the mandate to How's this episode, the Court is presented be sustained under the taxing pose of the fourthe problem of a "tax" that result, it is clearly unconstitutional Public forest in con the boxing powers, which the extent that the provisions of the k HEALT need the day in the Est episode, sustain burden the States are inextricably ( watch various creature? In 2017, Congress to the individual mandate, they wo ga 1. UWE E medved the "zac" Imposed on American unenforceable. OF AME whe failed to abide by the individual man [The promised explanation or 3. NAT'L dur In Sa With that move, the slender reed pages of dense legal reasoning that he PERSPI that supported the decision in MFIS was been well received by legal scholars, Laudar seemingly cut down, but once again the 4. Schinc Court has found a way to protect the ACA sent concludes with the following]. Instead of defending the constitutionality No one can fail to be impressed by s of the individual mandate, the Court simply lengths to which this Court has bom Fund ducks the have and holds that none of the to go to defend the ACA against all they CC/ES Acthe challengers, including the 18 States that penalty is a tax. The United States bag 5. Quot think the Act saddles them with huge finan- And 18 States who bear costly burdens 6. Id. at cial costs, is entitled to sur- the ACA cannot even get a foot in the day Can this be correct? The ACA imposes raise a constitutional challenge. 50 afat 7. The mary burdensome obligations on States does not tax is allowed to stand and some adeq in their capacity as employers, and the 18 Delib States in question collectively have more one of the biggest Government programs our Nation's history. Fans of judicialing and than a million employees. Even $1 in harm is tiveness will applaud once again. But | me B. U.S. respectfully dissent. 9. See. CE Discussion Questions sept ce/ 1. What do you know of the judicial philosophies of the seven Justices who voted to real Pro the court of appeals? 103 2. Compare the majority opinion and Justice Thomas's concurring opinion with the opici 10. Jace the two dissenters. Which of the viewpoints do you find more persuasive? 11. De 3. What would the effect have been on the healthcare sector of our economy if the plic arguments had prevailed in the Supreme Court? 12. See, So [ht - 1 - 13. See ht ins 24 x 4032 3 MB