Is the So-Called Mandate Without Any Tax Consequences Unconstitutional? And If So, How Should a Court Remedy That? Part Three in a Series Examining Underexplored Issues in the California v. Texas Affordable Care Act Case

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this third of a series of columns examining underexplored issues in the California v. Texas case challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone consider whether the so-called individual mandate of the ACA, now without any tax consequences, is unconstitutional, as the challengers argue. The authors explain why, in their view, the challengers are incorrect, regardless of whether the word “shall” in the ACA is interpreted as obligatory or not.

Read More

Jones v. Wainwright

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4870

Opinion Date: October 15, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that the court of appeals properly determined that Appellant's claim was barred by res judicata. Appellant pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and aggravated robbery and was later released on parole. The Ohio Parole Board later found that Appellant had violated the conditions of his release and revoked his parole. Later that year, Appellant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which the common pleas court dismissed. Appellant subsequently filed a second petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that the Parole Board lacked authority to revoke his parole. The court of appeals dismissed the petition, concluding that the claim was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the court of appeals did not err.

State ex rel. Crangle v. Summit County Common Pleas Court

Citation: 2020-Ohio-4871

Opinion Date: October 15, 2020

Judge: Per Curiam

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus, holding that the court of appeals correctly dismissed the mandamus petition. Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of rape and was sentenced to life imprisonment with parole eligibility after ten years. The trial court later entered a nunc pro tunc judgment of conviction to specify that Appellant's sentence included five years of mandatory postrelease control. Appellant later commenced this mandamus action arguing that his sentence was void. The court of appeals dismissed the action. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant had adequate remedies at law that precluded extraordinary relief in mandamus.