the solicitor general acts as the federal government's lawyer before the supreme court.
the solicitor general acts as the federal government's lawyer before the supreme court.
who acts as the federal government's lawyer before the supreme court?
solicitor general
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
the highest judicial organ at the federal level was the supreme court of czechoslovakia. supreme court judges were elected by the federal assembly to serve ten-year terms of office. the federal assembly also selected a chairman and vice chairman of the supreme court. if the chairman was from the czech socialist republic, the vice chairman must have been from the slovak socialist republic, and vice versa. the two republics must have been represented by an equal number of supreme court judges. petitions for breach of law against decisions of the republic supreme courts were heard in the supreme court at the federal level. in addition to serving as the nation's final court of appeals, the supreme court of czechoslovakia examined the legality of decisions of the federal government and, in general, ensured the uniform interpretation of the laws. it also heard requests for recognition of foreign judgments in czechoslovakia. the decisions of the supreme court emanate from "benches", which comprised the supreme court chairman and selected professional judges. the supreme court also acted as the final court of appeal in military cases, although below the supreme court level military cases are handled in military courts, which were distinct from civil courts.
government structure of communist czechoslovakia