Is the So-Called Mandate Without Any Tax Consequences Unconstitutional? And If So, How Should a Court Remedy That? Part Three in a Series Examining Underexplored Issues in the California v. Texas Affordable Care Act Case

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this third of a series of columns examining underexplored issues in the California v. Texas case challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone consider whether the so-called individual mandate of the ACA, now without any tax consequences, is unconstitutional, as the challengers argue. The authors explain why, in their view, the challengers are incorrect, regardless of whether the word “shall” in the ACA is interpreted as obligatory or not.

Read More

Commonwealth v. Guastucci

Docket: SJC-12829

Opinion Date: October 14, 2020

Judge: Gaziano

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of two counts of possession of child pornography, in violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 272, 29C, holding that the information in the search warrant was sufficient for a magistrate to have found probable cause. Seven months after Defendant's alleged illegal activity, a police trooper obtained a warrant authorizing a search of all computer systems and digital storage devices located within Defendant's residence for evidence of child pornography. During the execution of a search warrant Defendant's laptop computer and flash drive were seized. On appeal from his conviction, Defendant argued that the passage of seven months between the alleged upload of child pornography and the application for a search warrant rendered the warrant stale so that it lacked probable cause. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the motion judge did not err in finding that the information in the warrant affidavit was not stale when the warrant was filed.

Commonwealth v. Silvelo

Docket: SJC-12866

Opinion Date: October 14, 2020

Judge: Lowy

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed Defendant's convictions of carrying a firearm without a license and of possessing a loaded firearm, holding that no prejudicial error occurred in the proceedings below. Specifically, the Supreme Judicial Court held (1) the motion judge did to err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress the firearm; (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of possession of a loaded firearm; (3) the trial court's failure to instruct the jury that Defendant had to know that the firearm was loaded did not create a substantial risk of a miscarriage of justice; and (4) there was no error in the prosecutor's closing arguments.

Roberts v. Hingham Division of the District Court Department

Docket: SJC-12854

Opinion Date: October 14, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the single justice of the court denying Petitioner's petition for extraordinary relief pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 211, 3, holding that the extraordinary remedy of general superintendence was not required in this matter. In his petition, Petitioner claimed that Respondents had engaged in a conspiracy to deprive him of due process in his criminal matter and in his efforts to apply for criminal complaints. The single justice denied the petition without a hearing. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner had adequate alternative avenues to seek the relief he requested in connection with the criminal case against him.