The Mask Slips: Standing, the Affordable Care Act, and Hypocrisy in High Places

SHERRY F. COLB

Cornell law professor Sherry F. Colb considers one aspect of the oral argument in California v. Texas, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act to come before the U.S. Supreme Court. Specifically, Colb considers the way in which some of the Justices talked during the oral argument about the doctrine of judicial standing, and she calls out those Justices’ hypocrisy as to that issue.

Read More

State ex rel. Morrisey v. Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston

Docket: 19-1056

Opinion Date: November 16, 2020

Judge: Walker

Areas of Law: Antitrust & Trade Regulation, Consumer Law

The Supreme Court considered a question certified by the circuit court and answered that the deceptive trade practices provisions of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (the Act), W. Va. Code 46A-6-101 to -106, do not apply to educational and recreational services offered by a religious institution. The Attorney General sued the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston and Michael Bransfield, in his capacity as former bishop of the Diocese, alleging (1) the Diocese knowingly employed persons who admitted to sexually abusing others or who were credibly accused of sexual abuse at its camps and schools, and (2) by misrepresenting or hiding that danger, the Diocese violated the deceptive practices provisions of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. The circuit court dismissed the Attorney General's claims but stayed its order and certified a question of law to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court answered the question in the negative, holding that the deceptive practices provisions of the Act do not apply to educational and recreational services offered by a religious institution.

Frazier v. Bragg

Docket: 19-0519

Opinion Date: November 16, 2020

Judge: Hutchison

Areas of Law: Government & Administrative Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court affirming the decision of the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) reversing the administrative order revoking Gary Bragg's driving privileges for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, controlled substances and/or drugs (DUI), holding that the OAH erred in reversing the order of revocation. Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the OAH erred in reversing the order of revocation based solely upon the fact that a blood sample withdrawn from Bragg was not tested or made available to Bragg for independent testing; and (2) because the OAH failed otherwise to evaluate the record evidence, the case must be remanded for a determination of whether sufficient evidence supported the administrative revocation of Bragg's driver's license.