jeffrey b. wall acted as the federal government's lawyer before the supreme court from september 2017 to 2020.
jeffrey b. wall acted as the federal government's lawyer before the supreme court from september 2017 to 2020.
who acts as the federal government's lawyer before the supreme court from september 2017 to 2020?
jeffrey b. wall
Na
Na
georgetown law professor randy barnett stated that by invalidating the withholding of existing medicaid funding as unconstitutionally coercive the supreme court found an enforceable limit on the spending power of the federal government. this limit on the spending power of the federal government is part of neal k. katyal's ruling analysis. law professor neal k. katyal at georgetown university, who served as acting solicitor general of the united states and argued the health care cases at the appellate level, argued that the supreme court ruling could change the relationship between the federal government and the states because of "the existence of an extraconstitutional limit" on the federal government's power under the spending clause. katyal said that until now it had been understood that when the federal government gave money to a state in exchange for the state's doing something, the federal government was free to do so as long as a reasonable relationship existed between the federal funds and the act the federal government wanted the state to perform. he then referred to the court holding that the aca's requirement that states rapidly extend medicaid coverage to new beneficiaries or lose existing federal payments was unduly coercive by noting that the court found that "such a threat is coercive and that the states cannot be penalized for not expanding their medicaid coverage after receiving funds. and it does so in the context of medicaid, which congress created and can alter, amend or abolish at any time. ... this was the first significant loss for the federal government's spending power in decades. the fancy footwork that the court employed to view the act as coercive could come back in later cases to haunt the federal government. many programs are built on the government's spending power, and the existence of an extraconstitutional limit on that power is a worrisome development." katyal also mentioned that the federal government told the court that long-standing laws contain clauses that condition money on state performance of certain activities. "the decision leaves open the question of whether those acts, and many others (like the clean air act), are now unconstitutional as well." however reuters reported later that katyal reversed his opinion and stated that he didn't see any litigation coming out of the supreme court holding in the near term.
national federation of independent business v. sebelius