Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Public health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

Framework Proposal for a US Upstream Greenhouse Gas Tax with WTO-Compliant Border Adjustments

Abstract: Discussions regarding policies to limit greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions have been ongoing for decades, and GHG policies of various types have been implemented for years in many countries. In practice, countries that adopt GHG policies utilize a portfolio that typically includes a mix of standards, subsidies, mandates and price-based policies, each directed at particular economic sectors. In view of obvious inefficiencies and lack of synergies resulting from the portfolio approach, economists and many others have convincingly argued that setting a price on carbon—and other GHG emissions—using an economy-wide, upstream GHG tax would be the most effective and efficient policy to address GHG emissions. Its effectiveness stems from being able to cover all emissions from production and use of fossil fuels by applying the tax on producers of coal, oil, and gas resources at the mine mouth and wellhead before they are combusted, rather than dealing with actual emissions from millions of individual sources and actors throughout the economy. Its efficiency stems from allowing markets, rather than the political process, to identify and implement the most cost-effective steps to reduce emissions through decisions that affect current operations and purchases, and through decisions now about investment, research and development to invent and deploy more effective solutions to reduce future GHG emissions. Myriad issues must be addressed to design and approve legislation to implement an upstream, economy-wide GHG tax. This report does not address that galaxy of challenges and opportunities. Rather, assuming that an upstream GHG tax could be implemented, the report addresses the challenge of border adjustments for exports and imports in the context of a domestic upstream GHG tax, as described below. The domestic GHG tax could cause energy-intensive industries to shift production to countries without comparable pricing, resulting in “leakage” of GHG emissions that the domestic tax aims to prevent. By shifting production from the United States, the tax would also disadvantage domestic manufacturers, their employees, and the communities where they operate. Hence, the call by many to introduce border adjustments: through the imposition of equivalent GHG pricing on imported products from energy-intensive, trade-exposed (EITE) industries, and by providing rebates from the impact of the upstream tax on the cost of products exported by domestic producers. However, doing this has raised concerns about consistency with rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Here we propose a Framework for a US climate policy with border adjustments that are compatible with US obligations under WTO agreements. It is based on an upstream tax on GHG emissions with rebates for exports and charges on imports for products from EITE industries. A companion Compendium (forthcoming) provides additional details on implementing border adjustments with specific recommendations for 35 EITE industries. Proposed border measures are designed in a non-discriminatory fashion, with the intent and effect of reducing global GHG emissions. Therefore, the border adjustments proposed as part of the Framework will not give rise to any valid claims of WTO violations. Even if such claims should be raised, a strong defense could be made under the exceptions to the WTO rules.

King v Burwell : Subsidizing US Health Insurance for Low- and Middle-Income Individuals

Abstract: In King v. Burwell, the U.S. Supreme Court once again saved the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by upholding subsidies (tax credits) offered to low- and middle-income individuals for insurance bought on federal exchanges. A contrary opinion would have put at risk health insurance for 6.4 million Americans and threatened to destabilize insurance markets for millions more.The ACA is supported by four interlocking reforms, each of which are necessary to realize its promise of expanding health care coverage: (1) guaranteed issue (prohibiting discrimination based on pre-existing conditions), (2) community rating (barring insurers from imposing higher premiums based on health status and prohibiting lifetime caps), (3) tax subsidies to offset the cost of premiums for low- and middle-income individuals, and (4) Medicaid expansion. King v. Burwell threatened to undermine the third pillar. Buried deep within the law, the ACA states that subsidies are available to “Exchange[s] established by the State.” Not imaging that their residents could be denied subsidies, 34 states chose to allow the federal government to run their exchanges. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government, recognizing that Congress would not have given states the option of having the federal government run their exchanges, while simultaneously dooming those exchanges to dysfunction.With the ACA now safe from its latest — and it is to be hoped last — existential judicial challenge, attention must now turn to the law’s unfinished business. First, a confluence of judicial interpretation and political impasse has created a new Medicaid “donut hole,” with many earning too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to receive ACA subsidies. States should close this hole, both to protect their most vulnerable citizens and to boost their own economies. Second, the law has left out approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants to the U.S. More than half are uninsured, leading to poor health outcomes, needlessly straining emergency services and safety-net hospitals, and endangering public health. Some localities have experimented with ways of expanding coverage, but national action is needed to guarantee universal health coverage.

Wael Hallaq, The Impossible State: Islam, Politics, and Modernity's Moral Predicament (New York: Columbia University Press, 2012). Pp. 272. $37.50 cloth.

Abstract: critique (and of ethnography), one less guided by suspicion? In other words, how might the ethics of the fatwa—an asecular ethics of self-care that aims at unblocking the way—speak back to anthropology as a mode of inquiry? Questioning Secularism is a provocative book that offers critical contributions to literature on the secular, Islam, sovereignty, and state power. While the argument is relevant far beyond Egypt, it is carefully grounded in nuanced historical and ethnographic context. Remarkably, the book remains extremely readable and accessible even as it handles highly complex questions and never opts for easy answers. This book will invigorate—and transform—the study of the secular. It is therefore a must-read not only for all those interested in the region but also for those with an interest in secular power more broadly.

New Perspectives on Moral Cognition: Reply to Zimmerman, Enoch, and Chemla, Egré & Schlenker

Abstract: This extended essay responds to three commentaries on my book, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment, which were written in connection with a symposium on the book sponsored the Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies. The three commentaries are:Aaron Zimmerman, "Mikhail's Naturalized Moral Rationalism," 3 Jerusalem Rev. L. Stud. 1-22 (2013)David Enoch, "On Analogies, Disanalogies, and Moral Philosophy: A Comment on John Mikhail's Elements of Moral Cognition," 3 Jerusalem Rev. L. Stud. 1-25 (2013)Emmanuel Chemla, Paul Egre & Philippe Schlenker, "Moral Judgments and Semantic Judgments: A Case Study (Comments on Mikhail)," 3 Jerusalem Rev. L. Stud. 1-18 (2013)The essay address a number of topics lying at the intersection of law, ethics, and cognitive science that are raised by these commentaries and that have been discussed at length in the secondary literature. These topics include whether the prohibition of intentional battery and the principle of double effect are descriptively adequate; whether these and other moral principles are innate; whether my trolley problem data are replicable; whether Rawls was a moral psychologist; the relations among descriptive ethics, normative ethics, and metaethics; the role of idealization and statistical data in moral psychology; the connection between moral grammar and legal theory; the naturalistic foundation of human rights; the role of probabilistic factors in moral judgment; and the relation between moral judgments and causal judgments.

How to Save Unemployment Insurance

Abstract: Unemployment insurance is almost universally recognized as one of a government’s best tools for fighting recessions, as well as an important source of relief for working-class families suffering temporary hardship. Unfortunately, as commentators and Congress have recognized, the U.S. system of financing its unemployment insurance program is seriously dysfunctional. Reform proposals, however, do not fully diagnose the causes of current failures. In particular, other commentators neglect the role of fiscal myopia in state officials’ failures to save for future UI needs. For instance, reformers mostly propose offering rewards or penalties that will take effect only far in the future. These incentives have only small effects on myopic officials. Building on work in behavioral economics by myself and others, I propose a set of new reforms that address the roles that both myopia and federalism have played in crippling the UI regime. For example, I suggest that state governments can be induced to “Save More Tomorrow,” and that states should be obliged to opt out of federal default rules for when workers will be eligible for benefits. In addition, I show that any reform — such as all of those now on offer — based on the amount states currently have saved for future contingencies will likely only cause future cuts to UI, and propose alternative metrics to avoid this perverse result.