Supreme Court Decisions

About: Supreme Court Decisions is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 1804 publications have been published within this topic receiving 17066 citations.

The Dénouement of the Supreme Court's ACA Drama

Abstract: The Supreme Court has sent the debate about the Affordable Care Act's expansion of health insurance coverage back to the political process, while setting out competing philosophies on the reach of federal power and the Court's role in policing limits on federal action.

Supreme Court Nominations, Legitimacy Theory, and the American Public: A Dynamic Test of the Theory of Positivity Bias

Abstract: Social scientists have taught us a great deal about the legitimacy of the U.S. Supreme Court. Unfortunately, however, most research fails to consider how the public's views of political institutions like the Court change over time. But opinions can indeed change, with at least two types of "exogenous" sources - controversial Supreme Court decisions and politicized confirmation hearings - providing engines for attitude change. Events such as these may awaken attitudes from their hibernation, allowing for the possibility of updating. Two types of change seem possible: Attention to things judicial may be associated with exposure to highly legitimizing symbols of judicial power (e.g., robes), symbols that teach the lesson that the Court is different from ordinary political institutions and therefore is worthy of esteem. Gibson and Caldeira refer to this as "positivity bias." Alternatively, events may teach that the Court is not different, that its role is largely "political," and that the "myth of legality" really is a myth. Since so few studies have adopted a dynamic perspective on attitudes toward institutions, we know little about how these processes of attitude change take place. Based on a three-wave national survey of ordinary Americans, we attempt to understand the influence of the Alito nomination/confirmation process on loyalty toward the Supreme Court. Our most important finding is that exposure to advertisements by interest groups for and against Alito's confirmation contributes to the erosion of support for the Court. These advertisements seem to encourage the belief that the Supreme Court is "just another political institution," which, in the political climate in the country, is not an accolade. Politicized confirmation processes therefore seem to have considerable capacity to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself.

Microsimulation of private health insurance and medicaid take-up following the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding the affordable care act

Abstract: On June 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) upheld most of the provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the health care provisions of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (P.L. 111-148 and P.L. 111-152; henceforth referred to as the ACA).1 Starting in 2014, individuals without an offer of insurance from their employer and small businesses will be able to buy insurance on state and federal exchanges, with premium subsidies depending on their incomes. Certain employers that do not offer health insurance will be penalized, and individuals will be required to have coverage or pay a penalty. At the same time, however, the Supreme Court ruled that states could opt out of the ACA expansion of Medicaid coverage for all individuals up to age 65 with incomes less than 133 percent of poverty. Under the ACA as enacted, but before the Supreme Court ruling, the Medicaid expansion was mandatory for states that wanted to keep their federal matching funds for any part of the Medicaid program. The Supreme Court's decision immediately raised the prospect that some states might opt out of the Medicaid expansion. The U.S. Congressional Budget Office (CBO 2012) estimated that 6 million people previously covered by the Medicaid expansion in its March 2012 baseline would not be covered; some of these would enroll in exchanges, but the number of uninsured people would rise by 4 million. Our research has two goals. First, we predict how many people will take up private health insurance under provisions of the ACA. Second, we predict Medicaid take-up under several possible patterns for states opting out of the Medicaid expansion. Unlike the CBO, which did not make estimates for specific states but instead utilized average probabilities of opting out, we make predictions for specific states.2 We also predict enrollment in specific types of private plans (e.g., the “metallic” plans offered in health insurance exchanges). We find the ACA will increase coverage substantially in the private health insurance market and Medicaid. However, if states opt out of the Medicaid expansion, this could increase the federal cost of health reform, while reducing the number of newly covered lives. If six states (Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, South Carolina, and Texas) opt out, the number of uninsured people will increase by 7.9 million with a drop in Medicaid coverage of 4.4 million by 2021, compared with the pre-SCOTUS situation. Our predictions are based on a microsimulation model of health plan choice that we originally developed to predict the effect of the Medicare Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) on take-up of high-deductible health plans in the individual health insurance market (Feldman et al. 2005; Parente et al. 2005).3 We begin the study with a section that describes the model. This is followed by our simulation of the ACA effects on private health insurance and Medicaid take-up.

The Undermining of the First Reconstruction: Lessons for the Second

Abstract: As Congress considers whether to renew, amend, or scuttle the Voting Rights Act, what relevant lessons can we draw from the historical record of the First (nineteenth century) Reconstruction and its undermining? The federal voting rights machinery, more sophisticated and stringent than is usually believed, represented an attempt, parallel to the VRA, to protect citizens' political rights. It was finally outflanked, as the VRA may be. The promises of southern leaders in the l870s, convincing to some credulous Yankees of the period, are also echoed in the debate a century later. There were four stages in the nineteenth and early twentieth century attack on black voting rights: the Klan stage, the dilution stage, the disfranchisement stage, and the lily-white stage. Concentrating on the second and fourth of these, which are less well known than the other two, I detail sixteen mechanisms of nineteenth century southern vote dilution (most of which are still in use) and attempt to counter the argument that the so-called "Progressive Era" in the South was a "race-proof" period and that therefore any election schemes adopted at that time could not have been intended to disadvantage blacks. Finally, I draw parallels between Supreme Court decisions around the turn of the century and the recent decisions which climaxed with ~ v. Bolden. The possibility that the Supreme Court may again emasculate federal protection of black voting rights should give pause to any Congressperson who believes that he or she can safely let the VRA lapse because the courts can be relied upon to secure these rights.

A Decade of Change Roper v. Simmons, Defending Childhood, and Juvenile Justice Policy

Abstract: In the last decade, juvenile justice has emerged with more compassion and child-focused policies. During this time, crime decreased, successful strategies for prevention and intervention were ident...