And the beat goes on: Republicans on Tuesday voted–with a tiebreaking assist from Vice President Mike Pence–to move forward and debate health care legislation. Next up in the seven-year Republican crusade against Obamacare: hours of debate, possibly dozens of amendments, and, eventually, a floor vote. But the ultimate trophy of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act with a Republican-backed alternative remains elusive. Here is what comes next:

Debate then Vote-o-Rama

With the 51-50 vote Tuesday night on the motion to proceed, Senate Republicans are in for a long couple of days. First, they will debate for dozens of hours the various versions of the bill that have been proposed in the House and the Senate. Senators will also debate what will likely amount to dozens of amendments.

A so-called “vote-o-rama” will commence after the debate. Lawmakers from both parties will be permitted to introduce amendments to the health bill–Democratic aides have hinted the party will flood Republicans with amendments to trip up their efforts. Each amendment will be allotted one minute of debate before a vote, and the entire process can go on as long as is needed.

Option 1: Repeal and Replace

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been leading the repeal-and-replace charge over the past seven years, and it falls to him to corral his fellow Republican senators to agree on a bill. McConnell’s ideal scenario would be to repeal Obamacare and replace it with a health law that suits Republican priorities.

But the majority leader has so far struggled to align moderate GOP lawmakers and the Senate’s most conservative members behind a single bill. Several Senators have stated their opposition to prior health care legislation either because of Medicaid cuts or its insufficient conservative bona fides. McConnell scored a small victory with Tuesday’s motion to proceed vote, but can he rally enough of his troops to agree on a common strategy?

The first attempt at passing comprehensive legislation failed on Tuesday evening, as nine Republicans broke ranks and opposed the Better Care Reconciliation Act (BCRA) by a 43-57 margin in a crucial procedural vote. That bill was Republicans’ primary choice to repeal and replace Obamacare and included two amendments to try to reconcile the party’s disparate corners.

The first, introduced by Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH), would add $100 billion to a stability fund to help offset slashed Medicaid funds. A second amendment, introduced by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), would allow insurers to sell pared down plans as long as they concurrently sell more comprehensive plans that meet certain Obamacare requirements. Further votes on various versions of the BCRA or alternative bills could happen later this week.

Option 2: Repeal Only

A number of Republican Senators have already stated they will not support a repeal bill in the absence of replacement legislation. As early as Wednesday afternoon, a vote could be held on a repeal bill similar to one vetoed by President Barack Obama in 2016. According to the Congressional Budget Office, that bill would lead to 32 million more uninsured Americans within 10 years.

Another idea that has been floated is known as a “skinny repeal,” which would eliminate a few of Obamacare’s provisions while still leaving intact others. The narrow repeal would get rid of Obamacare’s individual and employer mandates, which required individuals to have health insurance coverage and employers to provide insurance or pay a penalty. It may also repeal Obamacare’s medical device tax. It’s possible that the “skinny repeal” bill could dramatically change when the House and Senate meet to reconcile each chamber’s respective bills.

The road ahead is still long and filled with potentially unbridgeable divides. Immediately following Tuesday’s vote, a number of Republicans suggested they would not support a bill that is not significantly different than what has already been presented.

Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV) said: “If the final product isn’t improved for the state of Nevada, then I will not vote for it; if it is improved, I will support it.” And Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who returned from his week-long absence on Tuesday to cast a “yea” vote on the motion to proceed, said: “Asking us to swallow our doubts and force it past a unified opposition–I don’t think that’s going to work in the end, and probably shouldn’t.” McCain, who was recently diagnosed with brain cancer, said it “seems likely” the effort would fail.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s Next in the Republicans’ Effort to Repeal and Replace Obamacare? appeared first on Law Street.

North Korea is Firing Missiles Again

Yesterday, North Korea fired an intercontinental ballistic missile that could potentially reach the U.S. The U.S. then carried out a joint military exercise with South Korea to show off its power and send a warning message to North Korea. But the North just replied by saying that it would not stop developing its nuclear abilities as long as America’s “hostile policy” and “nuclear threat” persist. The missile traveled 578 miles, according to the South Korean military. It stayed in the air for about 37 minutes. That means that it could potentially reach Alaska.

The North’s plan is to mount a nuclear warhead on the missile. The timing of the launch was also significant. “The American bastards must be quite unhappy after closely watching our strategic decision,” a North Korean state media agency quoted its leader Kim Jong Un as saying. “I guess they are not too happy with the gift package we sent them for the occasion of their Independence Day. We should often send them gift packages so they won’t be too bored.”

North Korea’s state media claims the country now has the power to strike the United States with a nuclear warhead https://t.co/UQ9uGZ2Ebc pic.twitter.com/m9c4phzFm7

— CNN (@CNN) July 5, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 5, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Weeks after House Republicans passed a health care bill, GOP senators are drafting their own version of a law that would repeal and replace Obamacare. Among a variety of differences between the two Republican efforts, one is especially rankling to Democrats: the senators of the Budget Committee are cobbling together their bill in secret. According to a number of Senate aides, nobody outside that committee, including a number of Republican senators, has seen the bill’s precise language.

Influential Senate Democrats took to Twitter to pillory the secretive Republican process:

My advice today: focus 10% of your attention/outrage on Sessions testimony, 90% on the secret health care bill that is speeding to a vote.

— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) June 13, 2017

 Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said Republicans “are trying to pass a health care bill in the dead of night.” He added:

If they were proud of this plan, they wouldn’t hide anything – they’d crow all about it! What exactly are they trying to cover up? 5/7

— Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) June 12, 2017

Republicans are hoping to vote on the bill by the July 4 recess, which gives them a window of a couple of weeks to finish drafting the bill, and send it to the Congressional Budget Office for a review. The CBO, a non-partisan analysis agency, released its evaluation of the House health care effort a few weeks after the bill was passed. It found that the bill could result in 23 million more uninsured Americans.

A CBO evaluation could take up to two weeks, so if Republicans hope to vote on the Senate bill by July 4, it would have to be completed in the coming days. But even as the bill nears completion, some high-ranking Republican senators are being kept in the dark as well.

“I want to know exactly what’s going to be in the Senate bill, I don’t know it yet,” Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) recently told reporters. “It’s not a good process.” And Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) said “this is not the best way to do health care, but it’s the way we’re having to do it,” adding that the only thing about the bill he’s aware of is that “they’re writing it.”

While the particulars of the bill are largely unknown, there have been reports about some of its broad outlines. Overall, the bill is expected to be left of the legislation the House passed last month. Medicaid expansions would be phased-out over seven years instead of two, and tax credits would be offered to a broader range of low-income individuals.

Once the bill is out in the open, and hits the Senate floor for a vote, it faces a fractured chamber, not to mention a complete lack of Democratic support. To pass, the bill will need the support of a diverse contingent of Republican Senators–the more conservative members, like Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), and more moderate ones, like Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) and Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK).

Meanwhile, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), tweeted perhaps the most creative critique of the secretive Republican effort:

BREAKING: Senate Republicans just released the schedule of hearings, committee markups and public testimony for their health care bill. pic.twitter.com/iHtXyZqyMW

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) June 12, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Republicans’ Health Care Effort is Cloaked in Secrecy appeared first on Law Street.

Following their failed effort to pass health care legislation in March, House Republicans are set to vote on a bill Thursday that would repeal and replace large chunks of the Affordable Care Act. According to House Majority Leader, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the bill has secured enough votes to pass. “We have enough votes,” he said on Wednesday night. “It’ll pass.”

The renewed push for a Republican health care overhaul began in mid-April when Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ) introduced an amendment aimed at attracting the more conservative congressmen who balked at the initial bill. The so-called MacArthur amendment needed a boost, however, and Rep. Fred Upton, a Republican from Michigan, recently introduced another addition to the law: an $8 billion infusion for insurers to cover patients with pre-existing conditions.

“It’s our understanding that the $8 billion over the five years will more than cover those that might be impacted and, as a consequence, keeps our pledge for those that, in fact, would be otherwise denied [coverage] because of pre-existing illnesses,” Upton said at the White House on Wednesday.

Even if the bill passes the House, Republicans in the Senate could gum it up and give it a major facelift to attract Democratic support and make it more palatable to members of their own party. With a 52-48 majority in the Senate, Republicans have a much narrower margin of error. In order for the bill to pass the Senate, it would need 60 votes–eight Democrats would need to support it.

Republican Senators in states that expanded Medicaid under Obamacare–like Ohio and West Virginia–would likely take issue with the Republican bill’s squeeze on Medicaid payments. And hard-line conservatives like Mike Lee (UT) and Ted Cruz (TX), could nudge the bill more to the right. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told reporters passing the bill will “be a real big challenge on the Senate side as well.”

Meanwhile, the top ranking Democrats in the House and Senate, Nancy Pelosi (CA) and Chuck Schumer (NY) respectively, strongly rejected the new Republican bill. Schumer tweeted that Upton’s amendment is “like trying to cure stage 4 cancer with cough medicine.” Pelosi, in public remarks on Thursday morning from Capitol Hill, said “Republicans are in a lose-lose situation.” She added that for Republicans supporting the Obamacare replacement bill, “This is a scar that they will carry.”

A number of health industry organizations, including the American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, and AARP, have expressed their opposition to the bill. Andrew Gurman, president of the American Medical Association, said Upton’s amendment and other changes “tinker at the edges without remedying the fundamental failing of the bill–that millions of Americans will lose their health insurance as a direct result of this proposal.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post If the Health Care Bill Passes the House, Will it Pass the Senate? appeared first on Law Street.

After bungling an attempt to overhaul Obamacare last month, it looks like Republicans will give health care reform another go. Tom MacArthur, a Republican congressman from New Jersey, recently proposed an amendment to the failed GOP effort, the American Health Care Act, eponymously titled the MacArthur Amendment. First reported by Politico on Thursday, the amendment is an attempt to placate moderate Republicans and far-right conservatives like the House Freedom Caucus, a bloc that helped sink the original bill.

President Donald Trump, whose 100th day in office–a standard marker of a president’s effectiveness–is on April 29, is seeking a legislative victory. But Congress will have its plate full next week, as it rushes to pass a government spending bill and, perhaps more important than passing a new health care bill, needs to come together to avoid a government shutdown. Trump, in a news conference on Thursday, sounded fairly confident that the new health care plan would rally House Republicans–something the first attempt utterly failed to do.

“We have a good chance of getting it soon,” Trump said. “I’d like to say next week, but it will be — I believe we will get it. And whether it’s next week or shortly thereafter.” The president, cognizant of the 100-day review tradition, added: “The plan gets better and better and better, and it’s gotten really, really good, and a lot of people are liking it a lot.”

MacArthur’s proposed changes to the AHCA, which did not make it to the House floor for a vote, revolve around giving states the option of opting out of requirements if they show growth. For instance, the amendment retains the requirements for insurers to offer guaranteed coverage for emergency services and maternity care, and pre-existing conditions must also be covered.

But if states prove that without those guaranteed coverages, premiums would dip, the number of insured would climb, or the “the public interest of the state” is advanced, then that state could seek a waiver for guaranteed coverage. States could circumvent the pre-existing coverage guarantee if they establish high-risk pools. These changes are designed to bring the party’s center and right flanks to agreement.

In a Facebook statement on Thursday, MacArthur, the architect of the amended bill, said: “This amendment will make coverage of pre-existing conditions sacrosanct for all Americans and ensures essential health benefits remains the federal standard.” Paul Ryan, the Speaker of the House from Wisconsin, hinted that the effort could be ready for a floor vote soon: “We’re in the midst of negotiating sort of finishing touches,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the GOP’s Second Health Care Attempt appeared first on Law Street.

While on the campaign trail, President Donald Trump repeatedly vowed to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as “Obamacare”). However, his first attempt at dismantling the federal statute crashed and burned before a single vote was even cast due to divisions among conservative and moderate Republicans on Capitol Hill. If passed, Trump’s health care bill would have slashed federal funding to Medicaid.

Now, in the wake of the embarrassing defeat, Trump’s fledgling administration is still looking to give the American people a better option for health care. Some experts believe this could still come in the form of reforms to Medicaid and Medicare, which have historically been mired in controversy.

So, lets take a look at how these health care programs, both enacted in 1965, have evolved over the years. How has the Affordable Care Act affected them? And what is the fate of these programs if a new health care bill is finally passed?

What is Medicaid?

Medicaid is a social health care program for certain individuals and families in the U.S. with limited income and resources. It was created through the Social Security Amendments of 1965–signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson–under Title XIX of the Social Security Act. It essentially acts as government insurance for those who are unable to pay for traditional health care costs.

The federal government matches state spending on Medicaid to enable states to provide medical assistance to residents who meet their individual eligibility requirements. While the program is jointly funded by state and federal governments, it is managed at the state level. Thus, every state has an immense amount of autonomy in determining who is eligible for the program. Since 1982, all 50 states have participated in the program–despite not being required to do so.

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) significantly expanded Medicaid eligibility, extending coverage to adults under 65 years of age who have incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, as well as making it available for low-income adults without dependent children. However, the Supreme Court’s ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius determined that states did not have to agree to the expansion. Thus, many states have continued to stay at pre-ACA funding and eligibility levels.

As a whole, Medicaid provides a variety of services for some of America’s most vulnerable populations. According to the National Council for Behavioral Health, Medicaid is the single largest payer of mental health services, paying for 25 percent of all mental health care and 20 percent of all addiction care. Four out of 10 children are treated under Medicaid, and a study published in Women’s Health Issues found that almost half of the 4 million births each year in the U.S. are covered by the program. Medicaid also often covers the costs of nursing homes and other long-term care options for elderly patients.

Medicaid Structure Explained

While poverty is a primary requirement for Medicaid eligibility, it alone does not qualify citizens for the program. Other categories, such as pregnancy, age, and disability, may also qualify a citizen for Medicaid eligibility. Interestingly, Medicaid also provided the largest portion of federal money for people with HIV/AIDS until Part D of Medicare was implemented (but more on that later). In most states, adults who receive Supplemental Security Income benefits (a federal income supplement program) are automatically enrolled in Medicaid. While state Medicaid programs are required by federal rules to cover comprehensive dental services for children, coverage for adult dental services is optional and oftentimes limited.

Some states choose to utilize the Health Insurance Premium Payment Program (HIPP). Under HIPP, a person under Medicaid is eligible to have private health insurance paid for by the Medicaid program. Essentially, the state pays the private insurance premiums for beneficiaries. States may also combine administration of Medicaid with other programs, such as the Children’s Health Insurance Programs (CHIP), for ease.

What is Medicare?

Medicare, in contrast, is a single-payer social health insurance program specifically for those aged 65 and older that has been administered by the federal government since 1966. With President Lyndon B. Johnson at the helm, Congress enacted Medicare in 1965 under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. Medicare provides health insurance to some individuals under the age of 65 with disabilities as determined by the Social Security Administration. For example, any individuals with end stage renal disease or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) are eligible for Medicare.

Those who have worked and paid into the system through payroll tax are eligible once they reach age 65, regardless of income or medical history. Currently, there are a number of private insurance companies across the U.S. under contract for administration of Medicare. It is funded primarily through payroll taxes, general revenues, and premiums paid by Medicare beneficiaries.

In 1966, Medicare spurred racial integration, by making desegregation of waiting rooms and hospital floors a condition of receiving Medicare funds. According to David Barton Smith, a professor emeritus in health-care management at Temple University, nearly 2,000 hospitals had integrated by July 1966 in order to remain connected to federal money for the program. Although some hospitals resisted integration, and those who complied found ways to restrict multi-bed rooms, Medicare still played an important role in integrating the nation’s hospitals.

Medicare Structure Explained

Structurally, Medicare is complicated. There are four parts: Part A, hospital and hospice insurance; Part B, medical insurance; Part C, Medicare Advantage plans; and Part D, prescription drug plans. Hospital and hospice insurance covers inpatient hospital stays, care in a skilled nursing facility, hospice care, and some home health care. Medical insurance under Part B is optional, and helps insured members pay for services and products that are not covered under Part A–usually outpatient care. Patients who miss their initial enrollment period for Part B incur a lifetime penalty of 10 percent per year on the premium.

Medicare Advantage plans under Part C are Medicare plans sold through private insurance companies. These plans are required to offer coverage that meets or even exceeds standards set by Original Medicare. However, they do not have to be identical in covering every benefit. These are considered “capitated” health insurance plans, which is a payment arrangement that pays a physician or group of physicians a set amount for each enrolled person assigned to them for a particular period of time, whether that person seeks care or not. The difference between Part C plans and Original Medicare is likened to the standard HMO versus non-HMO plan decisions other citizens make.

Finally, Part D covers prescription drug plans. It was created in 2003 under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act and went into effect in 2006. Anyone with Part A or Part B is eligible for Part D, though the coverage is not standardized. Plans choose which drugs to cover, though they must cover at least two drugs in 148 categories and cover substantially all drugs in six protected classes (including antidepressants, antipsychotics, anti-convulsants, immuno-suppressants, as well as cancer, AIDS, and HIV drugs).

Medicaid and Medicare under the ACA

Medicaid was expanded extensively under the ACA. Currently, 73 million people are enrolled in Medicaid, and roughly 11 million are covered under the program because of the ACA expansion. States who chose to reject the Medicaid expansion are slowly facing the consequences of that decision. Reports issued by the Urban Institute, Lewin Group, and Rand Corp. have stated that these states are slated to lose billions of dollars–money that their own residents have paid in federal taxes.

The ACA expansion also made a number of changes to Medicare; many provisions were specifically designed to reduce the cost of Medicare. It was designed to help Medicare patients afford their prescription drugs by closing the Part D coverage gap, often referred to as the “donut hole,” by year 2020.

Furthermore, premiums under Part B and Part D were restructured; as a result, the wealthiest people with Medicare had their contributions increased. More oversight, stronger standards, and provider screenings were also enacted to prevent Medicare fraud and abuse.

What’s Next?

According to a recent Pew Research Center survey, 60 percent of Americans feel that the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health insurance. This number increased from 51 percent last year and has now reached its highest point in roughly a decade. Those on the other side of the argument–individuals who believe the government has no responsibility to provide health insurance for all–do, however, believe that the government should continue Medicaid and Medicare.

Following the death of Trump’s heath care bill that would have repealed and replaced the ACA, some states are looking to see if participating in the federally-funded Medicaid expansion is a lucrative path to take. As of last count, 19 states have opted out. Some contend that an expansion of Medicare may be a way to improve upon the ACA. Potentially lowering the age of eligibility of Medicare to 50 may also make private individual health more affordable. Moreover, offering Medicare as an option on health insurance exchanges could bring in younger people, reducing Medicare’s overall average costs by not just insuring those who cost the most to insure.

In contrast, there is also the option of implementing a full single-payer healthcare program, considered “Medicare for All”–a system that Senator Bernie Sanders has advocated for immensely. Under a single-payer system, any links between employment and health insurance would cease, as well as expanding the net for people over 65 to all Americans. Thus, the entire spectrum of care for every American citizen would be covered: primary, vision, oral, mental health, and more. Instead of paying a premium to for-profit insurance companies, Americans would merely pay a tax and employers would also pay taxes through payroll. Senator Sanders is poised to reintroduce the single-payer plan in the Senate, on the heels of the failed Republican ACA repeal attempt.

Conclusion

Despite the problems with the current health care system, such as rising premiums and fewer choices for citizens, Medicaid and Medicare have arguably been success stories in their more than 50-year history. Providing insurance and health care to the country’s most at-risk populations–the poor, the disabled, and elderly–is something to be lauded. What lies ahead for the programs, however, is up in the air until a new health care reform bill is passed.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Evolution of Medicare and Medicaid in America appeared first on Law Street.

Last month, House Republican leaders introduced their new health care plan, the American Health Care Act. The effort was ultimately unsuccessful, and on March 24 the bill was withdrawn, largely because of Republican infighting. Republican moderates worried that the bill was too extreme, and would be harmful for their constituents. But Republicans further to the right disagreed, arguing that the bill actually didn’t go far enough. Those right-wing Republicans were led by the House Freedom Caucus, a caucus that has only been in existence for two years, but in the Trump era, has made quite a name for itself. Read on to learn more about the inception of the House Freedom Caucus, its ideology, and its members.

History of the House Freedom Caucus

The formation of the House Freedom Caucus was announced in January 2015. Its founding members were all hardline Republican representatives: Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Jim Jordan of Ohio, John Fleming of Louisiana, Matt Salmon of Arizona, Justin Amash of Michigan, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Ron DeSantis of Florida, and Mark Meadows of North Carolina. The nine founders reportedly planned their new caucus at a retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania, a few weeks before they announced its formation.

According to a statement that offices of the members released:

The House Freedom Caucus gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable, and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety, and prosperity of all Americans.

The House Freedom Caucus is notably more conservative than the rest of the House, and Americans in general. According to Tim Dickinson of Rolling Stone:

The Freedom Caucus acts like a third party in Washington because the political fates of its members are not yoked to the national GOP. Their districts rate R+13, according to Cook Political Report data crunched by Rolling Stone. This means their districts vote 13 percent more Republican than the nation as a whole — and are nearly a third more partisan than the median GOP seat (R+10).

The Split from the Republican Study Committee 

The House Freedom Caucus was an offshoot of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), a much larger, but traditionally very conservative, caucus. However, in 2015, the year the House Freedom Caucus was founded, some conservative Republicans thought the RSC had become too centrist. The RSC had also become quite clunky and large–it currently has over 170 members.

Reports on whether the House Freedom Caucus’s split from the RSC was amicable have differed. The founding members tactfully told the press that they believed a smaller, more mobile organization was needed to pull the party to the right. Some members of the House Freedom Caucus remained as RSC members, while others left the larger group.

The House Freedom Caucus and House Speaker John Boehner

Congressman John Boehner announced that he would step down from the position of Speaker of the House in September of 2015. He had held the post since 2011, when Republicans gained majority control of the House.

It was reported that Boehner stepped down, at least in part, due to pressure from the House Freedom Caucus. If all of the 30-odd members of the caucus had refused to support him, he would not have had enough votes to remain the House leader. The House Freedom Caucus members wanted Boehner to push harder on some far-right issues, like defunding Planned Parenthood.

Who are the Current Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

No one is completely sure. The invite-only group isn’t public with its roster. However, a number of media outlets have identified the members who have been open about their relationship to the caucus. Here are the congressmen who are believed to currently be part of the House Freedom Caucus:

• House Freedom Caucus Chair Mark Meadows, North Carolina
• Alex Mooney, West Virginia
• Andy Harris, Maryland
• Bill Posey, Florida
• Brian Babin, Texas
• Dave Brat, Iowa
• David Schweikert, Arizona
• Gary Palmer, Alabama
• Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
• Jim Bridenstine, Oklahoma
• Jim Jordan, Ohio
• Jody Hice, Georgia
• Joe Barton, Texas
• Justin Amash, Michigan
• Ken Buck, Colorado
• Mark Sanford, South Carolina
• Mo Brooks, Alabama
• Morgan Griffith, Virginia
• Paul Gosar, Arizona
• Rand Weber, Texas
• Raul Labrador, Idaho
• Rod Blum, Texas
• Ron DeSantis, Florida
• Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee
• Scott Perry, Pennsylvania
• Steve Pearce, New Mexico
• Ted Yoho, Florida
• Tom Garrett Jr., Virginia
• Trent Franks, Arizona
• Warren Davidson, Ohio

Who are the Former Members of the House Freedom Caucus?

There are also some former members associated with the caucus. These include congressmen who lost re-election bids in 2016, including founding member Scott Garrett of Florida and Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. Former Congressmen John Fleming of Louisiana and Marlin Stutzman of Indiana ran for other positions and were defeated.

Retired Congressmen Curt Clawson of Florida, Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, and Matt Salmon of Arizona also used to be counted among the members. Lummis seems to be the only female member ever associated with the caucus, so as it currently stands, the caucus appears to be entirely male. One founding member, Mick Mulvaney, was appointed by President Donald Trump as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, and therefore is no longer in the House of Representatives.

There were some members who decided to remove themselves from House Freedom Caucus membership. Congressmen Tom McClintock of California and Reid Ribble of Wisconsin quit after the group’s role in forcing Boehner out of the Speaker of the House position. After he quit, McClintock said: “I feel that the HFC’s many missteps have made it counterproductive to its stated goals and I no longer wish to be associated with it.” And Ribble took his complaints a step farther, saying:

I was a member of the Freedom Caucus in the very beginning because we were focused on making the process reforms to get every Member’s voice heard and advance conservative policy. When the Speaker resigned and they pivoted to focusing on the leadership race, I withdrew.

Representative Keith Rothfus of Pennsylvania resigned from the caucus last winter, saying that although his ideology still matched the group’s, he wanted to focus on “substantive policy work rather than procedural mechanisms the group uses to exert influence.” Representative Barry Loudermilk, of Georgia, also quit quietly, saying that he just didn’t have the “bandwith” to be in the group.

Most recently, Representative Ted Poe, from Texas, quit the House Freedom Caucus after the group’s role in the health care bill failure at the end of March. Poe said in an interview on “Fox & Friends” that he felt as though the caucus was saying “no” too much:

The president, Speaker Ryan, came to the Freedom Caucus and made some changes that we wanted several times. But no matter what changes were made, the goal post kept getting moved and at the end of the day, ‘no’ was the answer. And sometimes you’re going to have to say yes.

Poe chose to resign, saying that, “at some time we’re going to have to say ‘yes.’ We are in power. We need to lead.”

The Freedom Caucus in the News

Since its inception, the two most news-worthy events involving the House Freedom Caucus were its founding, and its role in John Boehner’s resignation. But the Freedom Caucus was recently vaulted into the spotlight with the AHCA controversy.

The American Health Care Act

Regardless of whether the assessment is fair or not, the House Freedom Caucus has been largely blamed by the media, President Donald Trump, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, and others, for the bill’s failure.

The big sticking point with the AHCA for many of the members was that it wasn’t conservative enough, and didn’t provide for a full repeal. At one point, it was reported that the Trump Administration was negotiating with the House Freedom Caucus to secure the needed votes to pass the bill in the House of Representatives. The Trump Administration offered to get rid of “essential health benefits” that were guaranteed under Obamacare. These essential health benefits included maternity care, emergency room visits, and mental health services. But, the Freedom Caucus still claimed that the bill didn’t go far enough, and on March 24, the bill was pulled.

Trump’s Attack 

In the wake of the AHCA withdrawal, President Donald Trump started criticizing the House Freedom Caucus. On March 27, Trump tweeted: “The Republican House Freedom Caucus was able to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.” He followed that up on March 30, by tweeting: “The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don’t get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!” The verified Twitter account for the House Freedom Caucus responded to Trump’s criticism on March 31, saying that the group wants to hold true to its promise to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and arguing that only 17 percent of Americans supported the AHCA.

Conclusion

The House Freedom Caucus is relatively new, having just been founded in 2015, and best known for being involved in Speaker of the House John Boehner’s resignation. But in the Trump era, with both the Executive and Legislative branches controlled by the Republican Party, the House Freedom Caucus has become an increasingly influential part of GOP House dynamics. What the group will do with that newfound power remains to be seen.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What is the House Freedom Caucus? appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, the government’s official nonpartisan prognosticator, the Congressional Budget Office, weighed in on the newly-crafted House Republican health care bill. The projections, while not exact, paint a fairly stark picture: by 2026, the CBO report says, 52 million Americans would be uninsured, 24 million more than if Obamacare were to remain in place. The report does offer some teeth for more hardline conservatives who called the Republican plan “Obamacare Lite,” in that it would shave billions of dollars off the federal deficit.

The Trump Administration rejected the CBO report–and it sought to undermine it even before it was released–and Democrats highlighted its uninsured figures as proof that the GOP plan does nothing for ordinary Americans.

“We disagree strenuously with the report that was put out,” said Tom Price, the secretary of health and human services. Price added that the report does not account for regulatory steps he will take, or supplemental legislation Republicans will put forth in the coming weeks.

The report explains why the Republican plan, which, among other things, would scrap Obamacare’s mandate that Americans buy insurance or face a penalty, could cause the number of uninsured Americans to skyrocket. “Some of those people would choose not to have insurance because they chose to be covered by insurance under current law only to avoid paying the penalties,” the report said, “and some people would forgo insurance in response to higher premiums.”

Premiums under the Republican plan would start off higher than Obamacare–rising by 15 to 20 percent in 2018 and 2019–but would plummet by 2026, when premiums would be 10 percent lower than the current rate. And, despite concerns that the Republican plan would destabilize the insurance market, the CBO estimates that the plan would “lower average premiums enough to attract a sufficient number of relatively healthy people to stabilize the market.”

The immediate effects of the Republican plan could be devastating. Next year, the CBO estimates, the expected number of uninsured people could be 14 million more than under the current law. Medicaid, a target of the Republican plan, also called the American Health Care Act, would take a hit too. The number of Medicaid beneficiaries would drop by 17 percent by 2026, with 14 million less people covered by the program. In a boon to conservatives who lamented the AHCA as “Obamacare 2.0,” the CBO projects the plan would save $337 billion, largely as a result of less entitlement spending.

The CBO, a nonpartisan body whose current director was chosen by Republicans in 2015, is not considered a soothsayer; it is more of a meteorologist: largely accurate but never perfect. For instance, it initially projected Obamacare to insure 26 million Americans in 2017. Last year, the body revised that prediction to 15 million.

Two House committees passed the Republican health bill last week, and by the end of the month, the entire House is expected to vote. Some Republicans, like the members of the House Freedom Caucus, have called for a bill further to right. Others have expressed worry that its cuts to Medicaid are too deep. Some Republicans in the Senate have also hinted they might not support the bill. On Monday, after the report was released, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said the report “should prompt the House to slow down and reconsider certain provisions of the bill.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the CBO Report on the GOP Health Care Bill appeared first on Law Street.

You may have noticed a lot of tweets pitting Obamacare against a new GOP bill recently. That’s because on Monday, Republican lawmakers introduced the American Health Care Act (AHCA), a measure meant to replace former President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, which helped provide about 20 million Americans with healthcare.

The proposal wouldn’t undo the ACA entirely: provisions allowing young adults to remain on their parents’ health insurance until age 26 and ensuring coverage for people with pre-existing conditions will remain intact. But the bill would eliminate Obamacare’s individual mandate that taxes people who don’t purchase healthcare and allow insurers to charge a 30 percent higher premium for those who let their coverage lapse for more than 63 days. It would also roll back the expansion of Medicaid (which is currently used by more than 70 million Americans) by 2019, restrict Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, and postpone the “Cadillac tax”–which fines employers for offering high-cost coverage to their workers–until 2025. Additionally, the measure could allow providers to charge older people five times more for insurance than younger people (under Obama the limit was three times more). For more information, read “What You Need to Know About the New GOP Health Care Plan.”

House Speaker Paul Ryan praised the bill, saying it would “drive down costs, encourage competition, and give every American access to quality, affordable health insurance,” and President Donald Trump has also tweeted out his support of the AHCA. But a handful of Republican senators and several Democrats, who have labeled the measure “Trumpcare,” see it as a downgrade that will increase healthcare costs.

Naturally, opposition toward the bill picked up on Twitter, where users began to draw comparisons between the ACA and the AHCA to famous movies, shows, or characters and their lower-quality knockoffs and sequels. Here are some of the most creative examples.

Obamacare v. GOP replacement pic.twitter.com/C1o8sIXB2I

— Lauren Duca (@laurenduca) March 7, 2017

https://twitter.com/morninggloria/status/838907799040114694

Obamacare vs Trumpcare pic.twitter.com/8VDZEAAtQx

— billy eichner (@billyeichner) March 7, 2017

Obamacare // the GOP replacement pic.twitter.com/sqTC8yUhAj

— Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) March 7, 2017

Obamacare // the GOP replacement pic.twitter.com/MNbNfhC3sI

— Dave Itzkoff (@ditzkoff) March 7, 2017

Obamacare vs. the Obamacare replacement pic.twitter.com/vf6rQRou2l

— Fun_Beard (@Fun_Beard) March 7, 2017

Obamacare vs. Replacement Obamacare pic.twitter.com/hLyW5sX8HU

— Andi Zeisler (@andizeisler) March 7, 2017

Obamacare vs. GOP replacement pic.twitter.com/wQ9gi9hPsG

— Alia (@MizzzAlia) March 7, 2017

Obamacare vs. GOP Replacement pic.twitter.com/Ajs2fhzKnk

— Ira Madison III (@ira) March 7, 2017

obamacare vs gop replacement pic.twitter.com/74C01phBqh

— Ashley Feinberg (@ashleyfeinberg) March 7, 2017

Obamacare VS GOP replacement pic.twitter.com/3G20CtCckf

— shackas (@shackas) March 7, 2017

Obamacare vs GOP replacement pic.twitter.com/NdpwOqS75y

— Philip Lewis (@Phil_Lewis_) March 7, 2017

Reasons why people are against the bill differ, though. A handful of conservatives in Congress, like Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), want to overhaul Obamacare completely and have nicknamed the AHCA “Obamacare Lite” or “Obamacare 2.0.” All this criticism could mean that the bill won’t get the support it needs to pass.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Everyone Tweeting About Obamacare vs. the GOP Replacement? appeared first on Law Street.

After seven years of nonstop handwringing, GOP lawmakers have finally made some progress in their promise to undo the Affordable Care Act. On Monday, House Republicans unveiled two draft laws that, taken together, provide a sketch for what the future of health care in America will look like. There is still a long way to go: hardline conservatives in the House have already admonished the new GOP health care plan for not changing enough; some GOP Senators have expressed reluctance to pull back Medicaid too much; and, of course, Democrats will be pushing back hard while the Republican-controlled Congress tries to push its new health care vision. Here is what you need to know.

What Won’t Change?

Though Obamacare has been the target of much Republican ire over the past seven years, some of the law’s most popular tenets would remain unchanged under the new law. For one, young adults can remain on their parents’ health plan until the age of 26, so many millennials can breathe a sigh of relief. In addition, in what was one of the ACA’s most lauded achievements, insurers will not be able to turn a customer with preexisting conditions away, or charge them more. Critics say that retaining these Obamacare staples while overhauling other elements is untenable. Remember, the GOP plan revealed on Monday is a rough draft, sure to go through many edits before any laws are actually changed.

What Will Change?

Mainly: tax credits. Income-based tax credits will still be part of the plan, but they will be phased out over time. Instead, tax credits will shift to an age-based model. Under 30? You’re eligible for $2,000 per year. Sixty or older? You could be eligible for as much as $4,000. Families would also receive more. Another change: in lieu of the mandate–Obamacare imposed a tax on the uninsured–insurers can levy a 30 percent increase on premiums if your insurance lapses.

Medicaid would be significantly altered under the Republican plan. Essentially, the federal government would pay a per-person cash allotment to individual states. The amount given would be determined by different categories of a state’s residents: children, elderly, people with disabilities. Mirroring the Republican ethos, the plan takes a bottom-up approach (states have more flexibility) rather than a top-down one (the federal government calls the shots). In addition, Planned Parenthood could stop receiving federal funding for one year.

The changes to Medicaid could be a step too far for some Republicans. In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), four GOP Senators expressed their concerns. “We will not support a plan that does not include stability for Medicaid expansion populations or flexibility for states,” Senators Rob Portman (OH), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Cory Gardner (CO), and Lisa Murkowski (AK) wrote.

What Happens Next?

More handwringing and, most likely, Republican infighting. In the coming days, two House committees, Ways and Means and Energy and Commerce, will review the plan. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) has said he hopes to get the full House to vote on the bill by the April 7 recess. The legislation faces a rocky road ahead. A number of House caucuses, including the Tea Party stalwart the Freedom Caucus, have branded the new health plan as “Obamacare Lite” and “Obamacare 2.0.” Whether hardline conservatives will squeeze more of their priorities into the final bill remains to be seen.

And of course, it is highly likely that no Democrats, in the House or the Senate, will support the plan. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader in the House, had this to say about the newly revealed Republican plan: “Republicans will force tens of millions of families to pay more for worse coverage — and push millions of Americans off of health coverage entirely.”

But President Donald Trump, who promised to revamp Obamacare during his first days in office, is confident the plan will pass:

Our wonderful new Healthcare Bill is now out for review and negotiation. ObamaCare is a complete and total disaster – is imploding fast!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 7, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What You Need to Know About the New GOP Health Care Plan appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Republicans Finally Introduce Their Obamacare Replacement

Yesterday, House Republicans presented their draft version of a replacement of the Affordable Care Act, which was one of President Donald Trump’s most ardent campaign promises. The new law would keep some of the ACA’s key components, such as prohibiting companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions and allowing people under 26 to stay on their parents’ health plan. However, it would reverse the expansion of Medicaid and drop the requirement that bigger companies must provide health insurance for full-time employees. It also does away with the provision that requires Americans to either have health insurance or pay a penalty fee. And it would get rid of federal subsidies for low-income individuals and, as many people have feared, defund Planned Parenthood for one year (more on that below).

According to Republicans, the ACA is “a sinking ship.” But Democrats are highly critical of this new plan. “Republicans will force tens of millions of families to pay more for worse coverage–and push millions of Americans off of health coverage entirely,” said Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi. And some on social media were also critical of the language used to refer to the new plan, claiming it was out of touch and didn’t acknowledge the real costs of care in the U.S.

Yes, the reason poor have trouble affording health care is all the new iPhones they’re buying. https://t.co/EJsZaejOH1 pic.twitter.com/SWoUp2nvAe

— Jamelle Bouie (@jbouie) March 7, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 7, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

The Republican fantasy of a two-pronged “repeal and replace” strategy for Obamacare seems to be shifting to more of a fix-it approach. “Repair” is the latest buzzword that some Republican congressmen are attaching to their strategy for dealing with the Affordable Care Act. But insurers are confused. Consumers are worried. And President Donald Trump continues to signal his commitment to repealing the law, while Republicans have yet to coalesce around a comprehensive plan. Some have even backtracked on repealing it at all.

The retreat from “repeal and replace” began in earnest last week, during a Republican meet-up in Philadelphia. Lawmakers left the gathering with fractured ideas on how to continue with their years-long promise to dismantle President Barack Obama’s signature health care achievement. Some doubled down on a wholesale demolition, no matter the lack of a follow-up plan. Others embraced a piece-meal approach: repeal Obamacare, then patch it up bit-by-bit.

But still, others seem to be doubting the wisdom of a repeal in any form. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), one of the leading Republican voices in the GOP’s health care effort, said this at a hearing on Wednesday:

I think of [Obamacare] as a collapsing bridge… You send in a rescue team and you go to work to repair it so that nobody else is hurt by it and you start to build a new bridge, and only when that new bridge is complete, people can drive safely across it, do you close the old bridge. When it’s complete, we can close the old bridge, but in the meantime, we repair it. No one is talking about repealing anything until there is a concrete practical alternative to offer Americans in its place.

All of this uncertainty has insurers worrying that 2018 will see premiums rise and the insurance market stumble. In interviews with executives from 13 insurance companies that provide insurance in 28 states, the Urban Institute found the uncertainty is “bad for their businesses and for the overall stability of the individual market, both inside and outside the marketplaces.” Insurers expressed particular concern that scrapping the ACA’s individual mandate–which levies a tax on anyone who decides to forgo insurance–could cause healthy individuals to leave the market, leading to higher premiums.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the Republican Plan to “Repeal and Replace” Obamacare Over? appeared first on Law Street.

Tuesday evening, the process of filling the vacant Supreme Court seat began, when President Donald Trump nominated Neil Gorsuch to succeed conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who passed away last February. At 49, Gorsuch is the youngest Supreme Court nominee in 25 years and, if confirmed, would restore the 5-to-4 conservative bent of the court, which has been ideologically split since Scalia’s passing.

Gorsuch, a Denver native who practiced law in Washington D.C. and was in the same class as President Barack Obama at Harvard Law School, is widely seen as fitting the right-wing mold of Scalia. He has served for nearly a decade on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit in Denver, and earlier in his career, clerked for two Supreme Court justices, Justice Byron White and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Here are five cases which provide a window into Gorsuch’s judicial philosophy:

Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius

One of the mandates in the Affordable Care Act is that employers must provide their employees with health insurance that covers contraceptives. In 2013, the owner of an Oklahoma-based arts-and-crafts chain, Hobby Lobby, challenged that mandate at the 10th Circuit appeals court. David Green argued that the ACA’s mandate infringed upon his religious liberty; providing health insurance that covered contraceptives went against his Christian faith.

Gorsuch, and four of his colleagues, agreed, and Green won the challenge. The Supreme Court later affirmed the 10th Circuit’s ruling. “As the Greens explain their complaint, the ACA’s mandate requires them to violate their religious faith by forcing them to lend an impermissible degree of assistance to conduct their religion teaches to be gravely wrong,” Gorsuch wrote in his concurring opinion.

Yellowbear v. Lampert

Andrew Yellowbear, an inmate at a prison in Wyoming, sued the director of the Wyoming Department of Corrections for denying him access to the prison’s sweat lodge. As part of his Native American heritage and religious beliefs Yellowbear, serving a life sentence for murdering his daughter, wished to use the sweat lodge for prayer and meditation. In 2014, Gorsuch and his colleagues at the 10th Circuit court agreed with the plaintiff, and reversed an earlier district court ruling.

Writing in the majority opinion, Gorsuch said: “While those convicted of crime in our society lawfully forfeit a great many civil liberties, Congress has (repeatedly) instructed that the sincere exercise of religion should not be among them — at least in the absence of a compelling reason. In this record we can find no reason like that.”

A.M. v. Holmes

In May 2011, a seventh grade student in Albuquerque, New Mexico interrupted a gym class by making fake burping sounds. He was arrested and charged with a misdemeanor. The student’s mother brought a case against the school’s principle and the police officer to a district court in New Mexico. The judges ruled in favor of the defendants, and last summer, the case wound up in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

The justices confirmed the decision of the lower court, and sided with the defendants–the school and police. But Gorsuch disagreed with the majority opinion. “If a seventh grader starts trading fake burps for laughs in gym class, what’s a teacher to do? Order extra laps? Detention? A trip to the principal’s office? Maybe,” he wrote in his dissenting opinion. “Respectfully, I remain unpersuaded.”

American Atheists Inc. v. Davenport

In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit found that memorial crosses that ran along a highway in Utah were unconstitutional as an “endorsement of religion” by the government. Gorsuch and three of his fellow justices disagreed with the majority on the case. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2011.

In his dissenting opinion, Gorsuch cited a Supreme Court precedent that found roadside memorial crosses “need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs.” He also said the court’s finding that a “reasonable observer” might not be able to read the names on the crosses as they drove past, and thus that they could interpret the crosses as a government endorsement of Christianity is a moot point. “Most Utahans, the record shows, don’t even revere the cross,” he added.

Direct Marketing Association Inc. v. Brohl

This case centers around a 1992 Supreme Court decision, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which found that if an online retailer does not have a physical presence in a state (like Amazon), it is not required to collect a state sales tax. But an online retailer that does have a physical presence in a state (like Best Buy), is required to collect a sales tax.

Colorado enacted a law in 2010 that forced online retailers, no matter their brick-and-mortar presence in the state, to collect a state sales tax. Direct Marketing Association, a group of businesses, challenged the law in court. Last February, the case ended up in the 10th Circuit appeals court in Denver. The court reversed district court rulings in favor of the DMA, and found that the law does not “discriminate against nor does it unduly burden interstate commerce.” Gorsuch concurred.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Neil Gorsuch: Five Key Rulings appeared first on Law Street.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015

Two high-profile decisions will impact millions of lives this month, including millions of millennials, as the U.S. Supreme Court issues its opinions on ObamaCare and same-sex marriage. These cases face what many regard as the most conservative court in decades, but center on two of the most prominent and progressive social justice movements in decades. At a recent Center for American Progress (CAP) event focused on the important cases of this term, I was able to hear the implications of these cases, and they’re definitely worth our attention. In the justices’ hands rests the future and stability of the American health care system and legality of marriage equality for all. The stakes couldn’t be higher this month, and that’s exactly why you should be informed of what’s going on. Here’s a breakdown—in plain English—of what you need to know:

King v. Burwell: Battle Over ObamaCare

Just because you’re young and healthy doesn’t mean you don’t need health insurance, and this particular court case will definitely impact young people. A little background is important to grasp how, though. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in March 2010. It established health insurance exchanges–marketplaces that facilitate the purchase of health insurance in each state. Exchanges provide a set of government-regulated, standardized health care plans from which individuals may purchase health insurance policies. If the individual has a limited income, the exchange allows that person to obtain premium assistance (AKA: premium subsidies) to lower the monthly cost of the health care plan, making the plan affordable.

The ACA provides states three options for the establishment of exchanges: state run exchanges, a partnership with the federal government, or complete federal control of the exchange within the state. In 2014, appellants in Virginia, D.C., Oklahoma, and Indiana argued that premium subsidies are only available under a state-run exchange, citing one clause that says that premium subsidies are available “through an Exchange established by the state.” Using this phrase, litigants argue that the ACA provides premium assistance exclusively to individuals purchasing health care on state-run exchanges.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument, saying that the context of the phrase reveals that Congress obviously intended for the subsidies to apply in all exchanges. But in July 2014 David King, a Virginia resident, and his co-plaintiffs  petitioned the Supreme Court and in November, the court agreed to accept the case. Oral arguments were in March 2015 and in June the outcome will be released, which has the potential to strike a detrimental blow to the Affordable Care Act. Since the ACA was signed into law, thirty-four states chose not to set up their own exchange marketplace and instead allow the federal government to operate the exchange, accounting for 75 percent of the people nationwide who qualify for premium subsidies. If the Supreme Court reverses the previous decisions and rules that only state-run exchanges qualify for premium assistance, that 75 percent will no longer be considered eligible for assistance. If the Court rules against the Obama Administration this month, about 6.4 million Americans could lose their health care premiums.

"Nearly 1 in 3 uninsured Americans have already been covered—more than 16 million people" —@POTUS #ACAWorks pic.twitter.com/rXVNHrkiW1

— The White House (@WhiteHouse) June 9, 2015

But there’s no certainty which way this will go. At the panel discussion on Monday at CAP, Elizabeth G. Taylor, Executive Director at the National Health Law Program expressed her skepticism of the Supreme Court’s decision to hear this case. “What I fear is that not only do we not have an activist court, but that it is standing in the way of efforts by publicly-elected officials to name and address social problems.” Ian Millhiser, Senior Fellow at CAP, argued that the King v. Burwell case is the “weakest argument that I have ever heard reach the Supreme Court.”

It’s especially important to keep in mind that young people will be disproportionately impacted by a SCOTUS ruling against Obamacare; over 2.2 million enrollees are between the ages of 18-34, making millennials the largest group insured under the ACA. For example, a decision against the ACA could cause young people under the age of 26 (who are automatically covered under their parents’ plans, thanks to ObamaCare) to lose their health care plans if their parents can no longer afford health insurance without federal subsidies. Whether or not SCOTUS protects those Americans remains to be seen.

Obergefell v. Hodges: Marriage Equality’s Latest Frontier

Obergefell v. Hodges will decide whether or not states are required to license a marriage between same-sex couples, as well as if states are required to recognize a lawfully licensed, out-of-state marriage between two people of the same sex.

Obergefell v. Hodges – the case #SCOTUS is considering, whether #LGBT couples have a constitutional right to marry http://t.co/FCJ6yo0ZGD

— V R Gaitonde (@weareji) June 9, 2015

Again, this decision will be important for young people, particularly because of the part we’ve played in the debate. Of Americans under age 50, 73 percent believe in marriage equality. Roberta A. Kaplan, Partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, stated at the CAP event Monday that the arguments in favor of marriage equality have remained the same over the years, but what has changed is the ability of judges to hear those arguments. “There’s no doubt that what made this change is the American public,” she said. While the Supreme Court does not exist to respond to the public, it certainly appears to be aware of the momentum behind the marriage equality movement. Just weeks after Ireland became the first country to legalize same-sex marriage on a national level by popular vote, SCOTUS will issue an opinion that could put the U.S. in the same progressive bracket as 18 other countries, allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide.

Regardless of the decision though, the fight for equality won’t be over. Let’s say the Supreme Court rules in favor of marriage equality both ways. States will be required to marry same-sex couples and recognize marriages performed out of state. But the next concern for these couples is the potential for more subtle discrimination. “Same sex couples will be allowed to marry but states will be able to discriminate in other ways,” warned Millhiser. Losing jobs, healthcare, or being denied housing and loans without explicitly stated homophobic motivations are classic examples of discrimination that could very well be implemented on the state level by authorities who are adamantly against same-sex marriage. If the ruling does come out in favor of gay couples, increasing skepticism is a must to keep unlawful, prejudiced actions in check.

Both of these cases have a lot on the line, although obviously for very different reasons. Michele L. Jawando, Vice President of Legal Progress at CAP said, “I would like to believe that the court is paying attention, and I do believe that the American people have a role to play when it comes to these decisions.” This is where you come in. Speaking loudly and acting louder can truly change the course of history. Lobbying Congress, rallying for your cause, educating yourself and speaking out to educate the public on the importance of these issues are crucial methods of putting public and political pressure on the justices. I’d like to believe that the American Constitution is a living and breathing document that transforms throughout history, expanding to encompass progressive views and constantly redefining what it means to be an American; let’s hope I feel the same way at the end of June.

Update: 10:30am June 25, 2015: 

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Two Supreme Court Cases We Should All Be Watching appeared first on Law Street.

It’s a new year, and I for one am excited to see what it will bring. No matter what, there will definitely be a lot of legal issues to discuss, debate, and bring changes to all of our lives. The five cases below are the top five to watch in 2015; some have already appeared before SCOTUS and await decisions in 2015, while others will be heard throughout the year. Here are five fascinating Supreme Court cases to watch in 2015.

Anthony Elonis v. United States

Law Street has actually been covering this interesting case for a while–check out our coverage of the case, the University of Virginia law clinic that’s gotten involved, and the all the legalese behind it. The reason we’ve followed it so closely is because it really is fascinating. Anthony Elonis was convicted of threatening multiple people, including his wife, an FBI agent, the police, and a kindergarten class. But these weren’t threats in the classical sense. They were written on his Facebook page in the form of rap lyrics. He claims the posts are art, protected under the First Amendment, and that he never intended to hurt anyone. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide if such intent needs to be shown when convicting someone of making threats. The case was heard on December 1, 2014, but the court has yet to rule.

King v. Burwell

In King v. Burwell, SCOTUS will yet again be asked to weigh the Affordable Care Act. This time, it’s all about the tax subsidies, and weirdly, the central question in really depends on one word: “state.” The way that the ACA reads, in order for an individual to qualify for a tax subsidy, he needs to be receiving healthcare “through an exchange established by the state.” So, can people residing in states that haven’t set up their own exchanges, but instead rely on the federal program, get those tax subsidies? The IRS certainly thinks so and has been granting the subsidies. It’s an argument based pretty much on semantics, but it could have a huge effect on the ACA itself. This case will be heard in March.

Peggy Young v. United Parcel Service 

This case will ask the Supreme Court to weigh in on how pregnant employees are treated. Peggy Young, formerly a delivery driver for UPS, is arguing that the company violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA). The PDA says that pregnant workers should be treated the same as any other worker who is “similar in their ability or inability to work.” Young and her lawyers argue that other employees who sustain temporary injuries or something of the like are moved to other positions, while she was forced to take unpaid leave. UPS claims that those other workers are given different jobs based on policies that don’t apply to Young, and she was treated the same as she would have been had she sustained an injury out of work. It will be up to the Supreme Court to decide who’s in the right here. The case was just heard in December 2014; an opinion is forthcoming.

Holt v. Hobbs

Holt v. Hobbs will require the justices to look into prison procedures that prevent inmates from growing a beard in Arkansas. The plaintiff, Gregory Holt, wants to be able to grow a half-inch beard in accordance with his Muslim faith. The state is arguing that it could be used to smuggle drugs or other contraband. SCOTUS will have to rule on whether or not those prison procedures violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The question that the justices will consider is whether or not there’s a compelling enough government interest to prevent Holt from expressing his religion. The case was heard in October 2014; the opinion will be issued this year.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

This case centers on the practice of gerrymandering. The justices will have to decide whether or not it was illegal for Alabama to redraw the districts in 2012 after the Census in a way that packed black voters into particular districts. The Alabama Black Caucus says that it relied too much on race when drawing those districts. While partisan gerrymandering is usually legal, racial gerrymandering is not–so the justices will have to decide which actually happened here. This case was heard in November 2014; the opinion is expected in the coming months.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Cases to Watch in 2015 appeared first on Law Street.

Health care costs have long been a hot topic of conversation in American culture. We’ve had problems with our health care system because the costs are high, of course, but also because sometimes they’re simply unknown. Often people who go in for a procedure, even with insurance, have no idea how much they’re going to owe until they receive a bill in the mail. One state has finally decided that that’s a bad way of doing things–starting this month, the state of Massachusetts is providing “price tags” for healthcare.

As of last week, if you are insured through a private company, you can go on that company’s website, type in what medical procedure you’re looking to get, and it will tell you how much it costs. This is part of an act that Massachusetts passed in 2012 that aimed to create greater transparency in healthcare costs, and make the system more efficient.

Now this system isn’t perfect, nor is it centralized. Not every single cost associated with a particular medical procedure will be listed–for example some places won’t list the cost of reading a scan or processing a test or an accompanying hospital stay.

The WBUR reporter who checked out the system, Martha Bebinger, also noticed some other interesting components. Health care costs vary by hospital or doctor, as well as by insurance provider. In some cases the difference was negligible, but in others, it was striking. For example, the cost of an Upper Back MRI ranges from around $600 to $1800, depending on where you go. Bebinger also noticed that the costs can change from day to day.

This is a valuable tool, because in addition to allowing patients to figure out where would be the best place to get a particular procedure, it also allows them to plan ahead. Some of the sites also create calculations of co-pays and the like, making the sites even more budget-planner friendly. Some of the sites allow the ability to leave patient reviews, so people can get some idea of the quality of the healthcare they will get before they actually commit. And while the system is by no means centralized, all of the big insurance providers in Massachusetts seem to have created some sort of online site with the ability to price-check.

The new requirements have also been applauded because of the hope that they may drive healthcare prices down. If people are able to readily access prices, they will shop around, and private doctors may offer slightly lower prices to incentivize customers.

The only possible concern I see is that people may be discouraged from going to the doctor’s office if they know in advance how much it will cost. However, I would imagine that those cases would be few and far between, and that overall, more transparency will benefit people who are on a budget.

Massachusetts has, in the past, introduced innovations in its health care system that ended up becoming national trends–the Affordable Care Act was loosely based on Massachusetts’s system of healthcare. Massachusetts may once again be in the position of testing an idea that could eventually end up a national norm.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Healthcare Procedures in Massachusetts Now Have Price Stickers appeared first on Law Street.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the contraceptive mandate in the Affordable Care Act, when applied to closely held corporations such as Hobby Lobby, violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Justice Samuel Alito wrote the opinion for the majority, which also included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Clarence Thomas, and Justice Anthony Kennedy. The opinion was a narrow one–Justice Alito made it clear that they were ruling on the specifics of this case–not opening the floodgates for other religious challenges. His opinion also stressed that this ruling only applies to closely held corporations with fewer than five majority owners. But despite the narrow ruling, this is a clear victory for Hobby Lobby.

The Background

In order to understand how the court arrived at this opinion, we must first understand RFRA, the law under which the contraceptive mandate was challenged. That law states that, “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” An exception to this law can only be provided if it shows a compelling governmental interest and that governmental interest is achieved using the least restrictive means possible. This means the interest must be achieved in a way that least violates our First Amendment right to religious freedom. Therefore, in order for Hobby Lobby to win this case they had to:

1)   Show that a corporation could practice religion and be considered a “person” under this law;

2)   Show that Hobby Lobby’s ability to exercise religion had been substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate;

3)   Either show that the contraceptive mandate was not a compelling governmental interest or prove that it was not achieved in the least restrictive means possible.

The Decision

The majority opinion held that a corporation could practice religion because its administration could make business decisions based off of religious beliefs. The majority also claimed that because companies do donate to charities, they are capable of caring about values that transcend profits–such as religion. Finally, they pointed out that in certain cases, Congress has specifically added clauses into laws specifying that corporations would not qualify, and would have done exactly that if they did not intend for corporations to be covered by RFRA.

On the other hand, the dissent, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, argued that a corporation cannot exercise religion because there is no clear way to decide who determines its religion. Would it be 51 percent of the shareholders? Or the majority shareholder? The CEO? This objection is why the majority applied this ruling only to closely held corporations with five or fewer owners, such as Hobby Lobby. These are often family-owned and can feasibly run their company based off of religious issues.

The owners of Hobby Lobby, the Green family, believe the contraceptive drugs they were required to include in their employees’ health coverage are similar to abortions. Their religious beliefs state that life starts at conception. Therefore, their ability to exercise their religion is substantially burdened by the contraceptive mandate.

Once the majority established that Hobby Lobby could be considered a person under RFRA and that it faced a substantial religious burden, they had to determine if the contraceptive mandate could be considered a legal exception. The majority conceded that providing contraceptive coverage was a compelling government interest, but also said that it was not done in the least restrictive way. They assert that because there is a penalty for not providing the contraceptives, the Greens were forced to either act against their religion or pay a significant fine. The majority opinion says that this is not the least restrictive way to provide contraception coverage, as the government could just provide the contraceptives itself and allow the Greens to respect their beliefs.

Another argument brought up in the dissent is that this ruling could lead to religious exemptions for other issues, such as coverage for immunizations and blood transfusions. However, the majority held that they were only ruling on the contraception mandate, stating that this ruling does not mean they would rule the same way for any other health care challenge under RFRA. The opinion specifically cites immunizations as an example of governmental interest that is compelling and is reached by the least restrictive means possible.

The Impact 

Now that we understand the ruling, let’s examine its impact, particularly on the Affordable Care Act. If we look at the ACA’s overall ability to provide healthcare, the impact is minimal. The ruling only strikes down one mandate, and says the government can still provide contraceptives itself. So in a way, it could expand governmental coverage of healthcare. Where this hurts the ACA is in the political battlefield, where the fact this was a very narrow ruling means almost nothing. All that matters is that the Democrat’s health care law overreached. This issue could very well serve as a rallying point for conservatives in the 2014 mid-term elections.

Already there are headlines popping up that make it seem like the Supreme Court ruled against the ACA. But at the end of the day, all the Supreme Court did was curb a small portion of the contraception mandate. They didn’t rule any mandate unconstitutional. They just provided a religious exception, while still leaving routes open for women to get the coverage the ACA promises.

—

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Nate Grigg via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde

Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hobby Lobby Wins Big, but Obamacare Doesn’t Really Lose appeared first on Law Street.

Happy April Fool’s Day, folks! Guess what happened last night while you were sleeping?

The Affordable Care Act’s first open enrollment period ended, and the government reached its goal metrics. Signups on Healthcare.gov and 14 state-based exchanges cleared the 7 million mark — the minimum enrollment goal — and will continue to grow over the next few weeks as last-minute signups clear the system.

This is pretty exciting. Why? Because Obamacare is officially too big to easily dismantle. The Republicans, with all their blathering on about bullshit death panels and anti-Americanism, have lost this fight. Healthcare reform is a thing that happened. And it’s not un-happening anytime soon.

And that’s a huge deal. Medical care is insanely expensive in the U.S., as is quality health insurance. Those high price tags have locked tons of low-income Americans out of quality healthcare, leaving them with lower standards of living and shorter life expectancies.

Basically, the high cost of healthcare has turned a basic human need into a luxury for the rich. It’s established that some lives (ahem, rich folks) are more important than others. And that’s super fucked up.

So thanks, Obamacare, for taking a first step toward fixing that problem.

But! Let’s not get too excited. Obamacare is still full of problems. The ACA is NOT universal healthcare — not by a long shot, and it shows. Let’s investigate, shall we?

Sarah, whose name has been changed to protect her privacy, is a recent beneficiary of the Affordable Care Act. She signed up for the Empire Catastrophic Guided Access Plan back in February. Under this plan, Sarah pays nearly $200.00 a month for the most basic of health insurance — her copays and deductible are high, making her policy little more than a guarantee that she won’t go completely bankrupt if she gets cancer tomorrow. (So we hope.)

Unsurprisingly, Sarah’s not super pumped about the state of her healthcare coverage. As a 20-something-year-old with mountains of student loan debt and a low-paying, entry-level job, she’s on a tight budget. And every month, $200 of that budget goes toward her health insurance — and that’s if she doesn’t actually try to use it.

So, why, if this plan was so lackluster, did Sarah choose it? Aside from the obvious factor of affordability (this plan is about as cheap as they come), Sarah wanted to make sure she could access birth control and STI screenings through her insurance.

“I signed up for this plan because, on the Planned Parenthood website, it listed Empire as an accepted insurer,” Sarah said. “But it turns out, for my plan, they are out of network, even though when I called they said I was covered.”

“Turns out STI screenings are not covered at all, so I have to not get tested ever, and I have to try to find a gynecologist who takes my insurance. I also no longer qualify for state assisted birth control at Planned Parenthood because I have health insurance that isn’t actually health insurance. I am literally worse off than when I was uninsured.”

So, thanks to Obamacare, Sarah is essentially paying more money for less access to the healthcare she needs. And that’s really not cool.

There have been a lot of GOP horror stories about the Affordable Care Act. This video is one of them.

Largely, these tales are vague, exaggerated, or entirely untrue. They’re pure propaganda for conservaturds who want to keep the healthcare industry as privatized and profitable as possible.

But then there are real people, like Sarah, who really aren’t making out too well under Obamacare. Stories like hers aren’t to denounce the ACA as a complete failure — even she conceded that the Affordable Care Act is a step in the right direction.

But Sarah is living proof that there are a lot more steps that need to be taken in that direction. Quality healthcare still isn’t truly accessible to countless American citizens. Obamacare is not universal healthcare. And that’s really what we need.

So, now that Obamacare has reached its enrollment goals, let’s keep pushing, shall we? Let’s make healthcare a thing that we can actually use.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Borman via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obamacare Is Here to Stay! But It Still Kind of Sucks appeared first on Law Street.

By most accounts, the rollout of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been incredibly rocky. Even as problems with Healthcare.gov have stabilized and enrollment numbers have increased across the nation, the law, alternatively called ‘Obamacare,’ is being hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its various provisions. One such notable lawsuit is Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and it has arrived at the Supreme Court.

The case pits Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius against arts and crafts giant Hobby Lobby, and it underscores the fierce resistance by some companies to the 2010 law. The heart of the case lies in the issue of whether or not the ACA’s provision forcing employers to cover contraception as a part of employee-based health care is an attack on religious freedom. Hobby Lobby Stores filed a suit against the United States in September 2012 citing the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993.

The Free Exercise Clause, if anyone needs reminding, states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” As for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the gist of the bill is that it prevents the government from passing legislation that would make it extremely hard for someone to exercise their religion. In this case, Hobby Lobby claims that the ACA  makes it too difficult for the family of ownership (the Greens) to exercise their religion due to the provision of contraceptive medication in employee’s healthcare premiums. It is important to note here that there is no explicit mention of contraception coverage in the wording of the healthcare bill.

The arts and crafts chain store only took their case to the next level after the Supreme Court refused to grant an injunction excusing Hobby Lobby from providing contraception coverage, saying simply, “Applicants do not satisfy the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief they seek.” Then, in July 2013, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton provided the Green family an exemption from the “contraceptive mandate.” In his ruling, Judge Heaton said:

Given the importance of the interests at stake in this case, the fact that the ACA’s requirements raise new and substantial questions of law and public policy, and that substantial litigation as to the mandate at issue here is ongoing around the country, the court concludes there is an overriding public interest in the resolution of the legal issues raised by the mandate before Hobby Lobby and Mardel are exposed to the substantial penalties that are potentially applicable. The public interest therefore lies in preserving the status quo until the issues raised by plaintiffs’ claims are resolved.

The tables were turned on Hobby Lobby when the Center for Inquiry filed its own amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in January 2014. In the brief, the Center cited the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the same basis of argument used by Hobby Lobby, stating that the government cannot make an exception on religious grounds for one company. With the Supreme Court granting certiorari since November 2013, many are eager to see the result of this massively influential case, and the next arguments are scheduled for March 25.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [DangApricot via Wikipedia]

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Craft of Contraception Rights: SCOTUS to Hear Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby appeared first on Law Street.

This year promises to be an interesting one in law. Here are some of the most interesting cases, trials, and legal topics y’all might want to keep your eyes on in 2014.

(Note: I have tried not to include Supreme Court cases that were heard in 2013 but will be ruled upon in 2014, as most of those have already been heavily covered by the media during oral arguments.)

8. Lavabit and Ladar Levison 

The case: After Edward Snowden’s revelations about NSA spying, it was discovered that he was using an encrypted email service called Lavabit. The owner, Ladar Levison, was court-ordered to hand over access to the entire site to the government, because Lavabit’s programming made it impossible to hand over access to just Snowden’s account. In protest, Levison shut down the site, defied a gag order, and has now filed an appeal.

Why it matters: This year, mainly from the NSA spying scandal, we learned about the technological abilities our government uses to monitor US citizens. This court ruling will either stifle or extend those abilities. For those who oppose the government having access to personal information, this Lavabit case may set important precedent — and it really will be a case to watch.

7. Jodi Arias Sentencing

The case: In 2013, we saw the extremely weird case involving Jodi Arias in Arizona. She was eventually convicted of murdering her boyfriend, Travis Alexander. It was a gruesome and disturbing case in which the jury found her guilty; however, they could not agree on whether to sentence her to life in prison, or death. A mistrial was declared on the sentencing portion of her trial and the new sentencing trial will also have new jurors.

Why it matters: The Defense has gone so far as to request a change of venue for the resentencing portion. They have argued that the huge media attention directed at the case has the potential for bias. That may be true, and it certainly wasn’t the first case with a big media blitz –Casey Anthony ring a bell? But if that’s actually the case, a change in venue won’t help — this case was huge all over the country. I’m reminded of an SNL skit from a few years ago about choosing jurors for OJ Simpson’s 2007 robbery and assault case. Watch it here, it’s really funny. But all joking aside, it’s the truth. It will be incredibly hard to find jurors who haven’t heard of Jodi Arias. Is it possible that our obsession with watching justice unfold is getting in the way of justice itself? Maybe we’ll get some answers with this retrial. 

6. McCullen v. Coakley 

The case: Oral arguments for McCullen v. Coakley are scheduled before the Supreme Court later this month. This case has been waiting for its day in court since 2001; there was appeal after appeal before the Justices agreed to hear it. It involves a law that Massachusetts instituted to create a 35-foot buffer zone around reproductive health facilities.

Why it matters: First of all, as I mentioned, this case has been going on for a very long time. The Supreme Court’s decision will add some sort of finality to it, no matter what the decision may end up being. Second, it could reverse a much-relied upon precedent, Hill v. Colorado, which allowed an eight-foot buffer zone. Finally, it raises an important constitutional issue about which right is more important: the right to free speech, assembly, and protest, or the right to seek an abortion without harassment?

Hopeful finality for this case.

5. Silkroad Case

The case: The infamous illegal-good site Silk Road was removed from the web this Fall, and its alleged creator, Ross Ulbricht, was arrested. The site sold drugs and fraudulent IDs, among other things. In addition to being indicted for his work on the site, he has now been accused of hiring assassins. The $80 million he allegedly made through the site is now in government custody. In 2014, he’ll either work out some sort of deal with the government, or face trial.

Why it matters: Silkroad had a huge market. It was relied upon by many people to get illegal goods relatively safely. Most of the Bitcoins (an electronic currency) in existence went through this site. And it was really only a matter of time until it shut down.

But, and this point is becoming a common trend on my list, it’s also another mark of how the government’s ability to use technology for prosecutorial purposes is evolving. I can assure you that this will have ramifications in the future, because people aren’t going to stop buying illegal stuff over the Internet. They’ll just get better at it.

4. Marriage Rights

The case(s): The Supreme Court already put a stop to Utah’s same-sex marriage licenses in 2014. The case will now go to the nearest appeals court. This is just one example; there are other cases regarding the rights of homosexuals to marry all over the United States.

A spontaneous reaction after the DOMA ruling last year.

Why it matters: 2013 was a banner year for gay rights in a lot of ways, but it’s important to note that the court cases will probably continue for years to come. There’s a lot of work to be done, and it doesn’t seem like the Supreme Court would unilaterally rule to legalize gay marriage. In 2014 we will continue to see more cases, trials, and hopefully, victories.

3. Voting Rights Cases

The case(s): There have been a lot of efforts at the state level to change voting rights laws, and the DOJ and various special interest groups have stood up to these changes when needed. But in 2013, part of the Voting Rights Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. So, each challenge to voting rights has to be filed against separately. As a result, many suits will be heard in 2014 to states’ attempted voting rights changes.

Why it matters: The change to the Voting Rights Act makes it more difficult for suits to be filed against voting rules, but special interest groups will also be under pressure to make changes before the 2014 midterms and 2016 national elections.

2. Contraception

The case(s): There were contraception cases regarding coverage through the Affordable Care Act that made it to the court in 2013, but many more will be on deck in 2014. One involves a nonprofit called Little Sisters of the Poor, and others involve for-profit companies like Hobby Lobby.

Why it matters: Not only is contraception a hot political issue, these cases involve parts of the Affordable Care Act. Parts of the ACA have already made it to the Supreme Court, but this will be a new decision will have ramifications as to whether or not companies are required to cover contraception for their employees, regardless of religious beliefs.

1. NSA Cases

The case(s): A lot of cases have been filed regarding the NSA’s monitoring of US citizens. A few may make it to the high court. US District Court Judge Richard Leon in Washington recently ruled that the NSA monitoring was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, District Court Judge William Pauley in New York dismissed a similar case. That kind of contradiction could lead to a big legal showdown in 2014.

Why it matters: The NSA surveillance debate was one of the biggest controversies of the year, and raised many legal questions about the ability of the government to monitor its people. What happens in these cases could set a serious precedent.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Dan Moyle via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cases to Watch in 2014 appeared first on Law Street.

Happy New Year, folks! Welcome to 2014.

This is going to be one hell of a year — and it’s already kicked off with a bang. Not a fun, happy, feminist bang, but a bang nonetheless.

During her final moments of 2013, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor signed a temporary stay on the enforcement of the contraceptive coverage requirements in the Affordable Care Act. What does that mean? Basically, she just made it that much harder for women across the country to access birth control.

Not your finest moment, Justice Sotomayor. Courtesy of the Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States, Steve Petteway source via Wikipedia.

Here’s how it went down. As of December 30, 2013, the Affordable Care Act requires employer-sponsored health insurance to cover birth control. So, basically, if you get health insurance on your day job’s dime, you legally cannot be prevented from using it to snag some birth control pills. Awesome.

But! As always, some folks were pretty pissed off about this. Namely, Christian folks. A whole slew of Christian-values nonprofits and businesses objected to this piece of the ACA, claiming it infringed on their religious freedom. The logic here, is that if Christian values include not supporting contraception or abortion, a Christian employer shouldn’t have to subsidize those services for its employees.

Fair enough, churchgoers. The government can’t force you to support — financially or otherwise — actions that are forbidden by your religion. That’s what religious freedom is all about, right? Getting to practice your faith freely, without anyone telling you it’s not allowed?

Yes! Absolutely. But, there’s another side to the freedom of religion coin. While the government can’t prevent anyone from freely practicing their faith, it also can’t push any particular faith on its citizens. So, while the government can’t stop Catholics from attending church on Sundays, it also can’t force Jews to celebrate Christmas. The street runs both ways.

And this is where things get tricky. While Christian organizations have a fair point — being legally forced to subsidize contraception if they’re religiously opposed to it is majorly problematic — they’re also forgetting the other side of the coin. They’re right in asserting that they can’t be forced to do anything that interferes with their religious beliefs, but they can’t, in turn, force their religious beliefs on anyone else.

And that’s the tragic flaw in their anti-Obamacare logic. If Christian businesses were given their way — and allowed to forego contraceptive coverage for their employees — they would be forcing workers to live by a set of Christian standards, unless they paid a steep price tag. What happens when the employees of a Christian company aren’t Christian themselves? What happens when they’re Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, or Atheist? Can those employees be forced to live by Christian values?

Absolutely not. Now you’re infringing on their religious freedom.

And here lies the central problem. Forcing Christian businesses to pay for contraceptive coverage might be infringing on their religious freedom — but allowing them to not pay for it might infringe on workers’ religious freedom.

It’s a lose-lose situation.

But! As per a compromise cooked up by the Department of Health and Human Services, there seemed to be a solution. Under this plan, Christian companies and nonprofits had to sign a form stating their religious affiliation, and instead of paying for contraceptive coverage themselves, the insurers paid for it, and were reimbursed.

Yay solutions!

Awesome! Way to use your problem solving skills, people. This way, religiously opposed employers don’t have to pay for contraception, but employees can still access those services if they choose.

But, this wasn’t good enough for many a Christian employer. Signing a form was, apparently, too much to ask. So lawsuits poured in. And Justice Sotomayor was sympathetic.

So, with the hourglass running down on 2013, she signed a mandate preventing this piece of the law being enforced. What does that mean? Religious employers can deny workers contraceptive coverage. For folks working at Christian institutions, birth control will only be an option if they can afford to pay a whole ton of money out of pocket. Which really means, birth control won’t be an option at all.

The Obama administration has until tomorrow to respond. From there, we’ll all just have to wait around for the Supreme Court to make a final decision sometime this summer, after it’s had a chance to sift through all of the case filings. And, mind you, things aren’t looking too good on that front, considering this problem was brought about by one of the most feministy of Justices. If Sotomayor is making it hard for women to access birth control, who the fuck is going to make it any easier?

We’re looking at you, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The tricky business of religious freedom has been a constant roadblock for women and feminism. What do you think about this latest Obamacare battle?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Parenting Patch via Wikipedia]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Happy New Year! Your Birth Control’s No Longer Covered appeared first on Law Street.

On September 30, I logged into Facebook and saw the most peculiar post.  A friend of mine works for the federal government, and his status read: “I really hope I can go to work tomorrow.”

On a normal Monday, that would be the weirdest sentiment.  I’m used to seeing complaints about how the week is off to a slow start, or how the weekend is too long. Those statements are expected (and usually true).  This post, though, was different.

While there was an air of lightheartedness in the post, there also was a sense of concern about the uncertain future.

As I type this, the U.S. government is in the midst of a shutdown.  Approximately 800,000 people find themselves out of work due to a government-mandated furlough (leave without pay).

Here’s a quick and dirty recap of the past week: the marketplace for providers to offer their services to the hundreds of thousands of people now eligible for healthcare under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) opened on October 1, 2013.  The Democrat-controlled Senate approved a version of the appropriations bill that would fund the government.  On Friday, September 27, the Republican-led House responded with their own version of the bill, which also funded the government if key provisions of the Affordable Care Act were cut.  In a move to signal that he is playing hardball, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent the Senate home for the weekend, meaning the House’s version wouldn’t even be considered until Monday.  Monday was the last available day for compromise to be reached without a government shutdown.  This meant that the House would not receive the Senate’s revisions until later on Monday, and would have little time to vote before the shutdown took effect at 11:59 p.m.

Speaker of the House John Boehner accused the Senate and the Obama Administration of putting partisan politics before the needs of the public.  The Democrats responded with the exact same accusation.  A stalemate occurred, and that is where we presently find ourselves.

Instead of attempting to compromise, various members of both parties are speaking to the press to posture themselves in a favorable light to their constituents.  These members of Congress are failing to realize that while they offer sound bites to various media outlets, their positive spin will never outweigh forcing almost one million Americans out of work.

It’s going to be hard to be reelected when sentiments like this one from the Washington Post: “We’re very hardworking people- we do a lot for people across the country.  And I feel that we’re obviously being used as a political pawn, but we’re also not being valued for what we do.”

It sucks when Congress can’t get their stuff together for the hardworking people they’re supposed to serve.

What does the shutting down of the government entail?  It’s essentially commandeering the Titanic, post-iceberg.  You’re in control of a sinking ship, but you’re coasting along until it sinks.  To slow down the sinking process, various items are being thrown overboard.  How does the government cruise?  By cutting the hours, and thus the payment, of your friends, neighbors, parents, siblings, and possibly you.

“Isn’t a shutdown the equivalent of a snow day?”

Yes it is- at least for the first few days (I know much about unemployment, and the first two or three days are actually kind of sweet: catching up on TV, sleeping in, and going to the gym in the middle of the day are great).  As time wears on, reality rears its ugly head via the accumulation of bills.

In fact, this shutdown really puts things in perspective.  For the past few months, I’ve been complaining about being an unemployed JD.  My complaints have been numerous, considering I really have nothing to worry about: I have no bills, a free roof over my head (thanks mom and dad!), and the luxury of looking for work full-time.

Furloughed government employees are adults with families, tuition, mortgages, car payments, and future plans, all of which are funded by their salaries.  Salaries that, for now, they no longer receive. Most importantly, they want to work!

So, let’s just hope that Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Reid stop this stick-measuring test and make the best decision for the 800,000 people without income right now.

—

Featured image courtesy of [NoHoDamon via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post When the Government Won’t Let Its Employees Work appeared first on Law Street.

The government has been shuttered for three days now, and things are already starting to look bleak.

I’ve written about how the GOP’s obsession with defunding Obamacare is really about a racist, sexist, elitist desire to keep privilege (and life’s basic necessities) concentrated among rich, white, straight men. And that’s what’ll happen if the Affordable Care Act gets defunded.

But even though Obamacare hasn’t been axed, those of us who are outside of privilege are already starting to feel the heat. While Congress engages in the world’s most irritating staring contest, government programs that disproportionately serve women and people of color are already starting to run dry.

Thanks, Hyperbole and a Half!

One of the first things to circle the drain are WIC payments. The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) has been deemed a non-essential government service. That means, while the government is shut down, WIC’s doors will be closed. More than half of the country’s babies rely on WIC to receive proper nutrition, and their mothers are the ones who will be left with crying, hungry, and sick children.

I’m sorry, but how can feeding babies possibly be considered non-essential? That’s really just awful. Especially considering that Republicans added a “conscience clause” to their ridiculous, let’s-shut-down-the-government ransom bill that would cut women off from accessing contraceptive and other preventive health services.

So basically, the GOP is pushing legislation that would simultaneously result in more babies, while denying food to those who already exist. And who has to figure out how to survive in all this mess? Women. More specifically, poor women of color. I’m sure they really appreciate that, Ted Cruz.

 And it doesn’t stop there. Head Start programs, which provide early education to low-income children, might have to stop serving their students, depending on how long this government shutdown lasts. A handful of Head Start programs will get hit immediately, with the rest following suit as this game of Congressional chicken drags on. Again, we’re seeing the GOP push legislation that creates more kids, while denying education to the ones who are already here. And who has to pay the price? All the mothers who will skip work, and potentially miss out on wages, to care for their children who have been turned away from shuttered Head Starts.

And those wages are really important, especially if this shutdown lasts any substantial amount of time. As temperatures drop, heating bills will rise, and the Low Income Home Energy program — which disproportionately serves women — won’t be able to provide assistance. Neither will the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program, which is, once again, overwhelmingly used by women. Single mothers will have to decide between paying rent, feeding their children, or heating their homes. How can we allow that to happen?

All of this is happening because our elected Congress-people can’t — or won’t — do their jobs. This is professional incompetency at its finest, and it’s entirely unacceptable. But it also reveals a lot about our national state of affairs.

While the GOP may have started this ridiculousness with the goal of blocking legislation that would benefit underprivileged people, it’s clear that systematic inequality is already in place. Anyone who argues that racism and sexism are things of the past only needs to look at what’s happening right now to see that they’re wrong.

If racism and sexism were over, women and people of color wouldn’t be hit the hardest when our lawmakers fail to do their jobs. They wouldn’t be the ones who have to choose between feeding their children and heating their homes. And most importantly, those struggles would be making top headlines in news outlets across the country.

But that’s not the case. Women and people of color are getting the short end of the stick when it comes to this government shutdown, and they’re barely making any headlines about it. It’s no coincidence that veterans — who are mostly white and male — failing to receive government benefits has caused national outrage, while the single mothers who depend on WIC remain largely in the shadows.

As Republicans fight tooth and nail to keep women, people of color, queer people, and the poor disenfranchised, they wind up highlighting all of the ways that these communities are oppressed in the first place.

So thanks, guys. You’re making my job a little bit easier.

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [cool revolution via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SHOCKING: Women Are Disproportionately Shut Out by the Shutdown appeared first on Law Street.

Well folks, it happened. After a collective freak out from the media – and a collective yawn from the general public – the government shut down today. Not surprising.

If you’ve been keeping up with this latest political soap opera, you’ll know that House Republicans planned this ridiculousness months ago, when they refused to meet with House Democrats and Hash out their budgetary differences ahead of time.

You’ll also know that this government shutdown isn’t the end of the world. A ton of federal employees will be furloughed, possibly without pay, military troops will stop receiving paychecks, national parks will close, passport applications won’t get processed, and Social Security checks will probably be a bit delayed. Obamacare will still become law. And Ted Cruz will forever be known as the latest King of Crazytown. (I told you all that someone would replace Michele Bachmann!)

To the average American, some of these facts will be irritating, inconvenient, or downright awful. (Are you the poor soul who planned a Washington, D.C. vacation for this upcoming week? No panda for you!) And the economy will definitely take a dip. But overall, nothing too horrific.

But! Let’s not get too comfy in our government-shutdown-who-cares apathy. Even though this doesn’t mean our entire democracy will come crashing down around our shoulders, it does bring up some very interesting questions about who matters in our government.

Let’s start with Obamacare, shall we?

A few days ago, Ted Cruz filibustered Congress for 21 hours, talking about why Obamacare is an awful, terrible idea.

First of all Ted, trying to dismantle healthcare reform while engaging in a very medically irresponsible activity probably isn’t your smartest idea. Just something to think about.

Forrest knows what’s up.

Second of all, what is so awful about Obamacare? Why is Teddy over here torturing himself, and creating quite the media circus, over defunding it?

Here’s what’s so awful about it – Obamacare benefits mostly everyone, but mostly poor people and women. Who are, incidentally, often the same thing. Also people of color and queer folks. Again, many times the same thing. Who does it benefit the least? Rich people! White people! Men! Again – many times, one in the same.

Ted Cruz’s obsession with defunding Obamacare is reflective of a larger idea that’s present across both parties, but which has come to a particularly alarming head within the GOP. Poor people, women, people of color, and queer people don’t matter. They are not worth out tax dollars or our reform efforts, and bills – like Obamacare – that would benefit them are offensive. That’s a really classy concept, isn’t it?

Seriously. It’s pretty gross that House Republicans would rather the government shut down than to extend basic healthcare to folks who don’t have access to racial, gendered, or economic privilege.

Now, obviously, that’s pretty shitty. But since the whole government shutdown thing isn’t overly dire, it’s not really a big deal, right? Jerks will be jerks, can’t we call just roll our eyes and move on?

Not really. Very soon, this government shutdown won’t be our only problem. In just 17 days, Congress will have to vote to lift the United States’ debt ceiling. While this sounds like voting to allow the government to spend more and rack up more debt, that’s not at all what it means – instead, lifting the debt ceiling simply means voting to keep the American economy running.

Without lifting the debt ceiling, the U.S. won’t be able to pay any of its bills. That means indefinitely delayed Social Security checks, no more benefits for veterans, and no more paychecks for soldiers. Also, hundreds of thousands of companies that do business with the U.S. government won’t get paid, the cost of borrowing money will skyrocket, and the U.S. won’t be seen as a safe place for business or investment.

Basically the U.S.’ economy, and the global economy, would go kaput. You think 2008 was bad? Failing to lift the debt ceiling would be much, much worse. And guess what! The GOP doesn’t want to do it.

Unless of course, a whole bunch of entirely unreasonable demands are met. Halting healthcare reform, building an oil pipeline, and nixing the regulation of greenhouse gases all make the list. It reads, essentially, like Mitt Romney’s campaign platform.

But, you see, Mittens lost the 2012 election for a reason.

He wasn’t shy about his disdain for the less fortunate, for those of us who are outside of privilege. We all remember his comment about the 47 percent. And last November, we all collectively decided that his wasn’t the kind of attitude we wanted in the White House. The American people have spoken! This case should be closed.

Mitt.

But the GOP isn’t willing to let it go. Some of their other demands over the past few years have included eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood – which would leave thousands of women, mostly poor and of color, without access to necessary healthcare – slashing food stamp funding – a program that is already insufficient for making sure the poor don’t starve to death – and preserving or implementing a bunch of tax reforms that benefit the rich and screw the rest of us.

The pattern is very clear. To the GOP, political negotiation means demanding people who are outside of privilege be made as vulnerable as possible. It means crusading against women, poor folks, people of color, and the queer community. It means threatening political and economic ruin for the entire country if our lives and livelihoods aren’t seriously threatened.

So, even though this latest government shutdown isn’t the end of the world, it’s only one episode in an ongoing political drama. And in 17 days, things could get much, much worse.

Because today, the Republican Party has shown that it would rather shut down the government than support a whole bunch of disenfranchised citizens gaining access to healthcare.

What will they do on October 17th?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [Mount Rainier National Park via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here’s Why Republicans Shut Down the Government appeared first on Law Street.