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

In re Children of Loretta M.

Citation: 2020 ME 121

Opinion Date: October 15, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Family Law

The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment entered by the district court terminating Mother's parental rights to three of her children, holding that the court did not clearly err in finding at least one ground of parental unfitness by clear and convincing and did not abuse its discretion in concluding that termination was in the children's best interests. The district court terminated Mother's parental rights to three of her children pursuant to Me. Rev. Stat. 22, 4055(1)(A)(1)(a), (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(iv). The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the express findings the court made were sufficient to support its determination to terminate Mother's parental rights.