Latest Case: Jones v. Mississippi (Constitutional Law)

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. Mississippi

Citation: 2018-KA-01721-SCT

Opinion Date: October 15, 2020

Judge: Josiah D. Coleman

Areas of Law: Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

Michael Ray Jones was convicted by jury of aggravated assault. Jones appeals, arguing that the prosecution’s comments on his refusal to give a statement violated his constitutional right to remain silent. Additionally, Jones argues that it was plain error for the trial court to allow hearsay statements. A majority of the Mississippi Supreme Court concluded the State's comments on Jones' silence did not violate his right to remain silent, and any potential violation was cured by a sustained objection. Furthermore, the Court determined the admission of purportedly hearsay testimony did not amount to plain error. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was affirmed.