Everyone has experienced a bad day at the office. And most lawyers have developed a thick skin against public criticism and mockery. But only one lawyer this year had to endure being called a “train wreck” on national television and being pilloried for making “the worst Supreme Court argument of all time.”
Such was the low point for Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli, Jr. after defending the highly divisive Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, before the High Court.
WASHINGTON – Few pieces of legislation will have a more wide-ranging effect on the practice of law in 2013 and beyond than the Affordable Care Act.
While a stagnant economy means a tough job market for many lawyers, legal staffing experts predict that attorneys with specialized skills will continue to find themselves in high demand in 2013.
Nearly one-third of lawyers who participated in a recent employment survey said they planned to hire full-time legal professionals during the fourth quarter of 2012.
WASHINGTON – As lawyers, lawmakers and legal experts continue to digest the 193-page U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding most of the federal health care law, including its individual insurance coverage mandate, one thing is clear: the decision will make an indelible impact on the way lawmakers create law, the way many attorneys work and the legacy of Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s Court.
But more immediately, the ruling in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius means that it’s time for many lawyers and their clients affected by the law to get moving quickly to prepare for its implementation next year.
WASHINGTON – It’s all over but the ruling. And after three days of oral arguments in one of the most anticipated cases in recent memory – the constitutional challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and its provision requiring most Americans to carry health care insurance or pay a fine – there’s one thing the experts can agree on: no one knows for sure what the justices will do.
WASHINGTON – On the last of three days of oral arguments on the constitutionality of the federal health care reform law, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court pondered whether they should act as virtual surgeons, taking a scalpel to the statute to excise constitutionally problematic portions while leaving the rest in place.
But the justices seemed stuck on a central issue during Wednesday’s arguments: whether the law can function without its heart, which is the individual minimum coverage mandate.
WASHINGTON – On the last and longest of the three days of oral arguments in the health care challenge, the U.S. Supreme Court takes up the last two issues in the case: whether the individual mandate provision, if unconstitutional, is severable
» Continue Reading.
WASHINGTON – The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed divided over the constitutionality of the provision in the federal health care law requiring uninsured Americans to purchase health insurance or be charged a fee.
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court began its historic three-day examination of the challenge to the federal health care law by taking up an issue that could stop the case in its tracks: whether the Anti-Injunction Act bars courts from considering challenges to the law before it is fully implemented in 2015.
There are two questions: Is the penalty for not obtaining health care coverage a tax? And if so, is the AIA a jurisdictional bar preventing courts from hearing challenges at all, or merely a defense that the government can raise?