Issues > Supreme Court Of The United States

SCOTUS - Cases scheduled during 2016-2017 Session

October Sitting

Bravo-Fernandez v. U.S., No. 15-537 [Arg: 10.4.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether, under Ashe v. Swenson and Yeager v. United States, a vacated, unconstitutional conviction can cancel out the preclusive effect of an acquittal under the collateral estoppel prong of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Shaw v. U.S., No. 15-5991 [Arg: 10.4.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether, in the bank-fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1344, subsection (1)’s “scheme to defraud a financial institution” requires proof of a specific intent not only to deceive, but also to cheat, a bank, as nine circuits have held, and as petitioner argued here.
Buck v. Davis, No. 15-8049 [Arg: 10.5.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the Fifth Circuit imposed an improper and unduly burdensome Certificate of Appealability (COA) standard that contravenes this Court's precedent and deepens two circuit splits when it denied petitioner a COA on his motion to reopen the judgment and obtain merits review of his claim that his trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective for knowingly presenting an “expert” who testified that petitioner was more likely to be dangerous in the future because he is Black, where future dangerousness was both a prerequisite for a death sentence and the central issue at sentencing.
Salman v. U.S., No. 15-628 [Arg: 10.5.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the personal benefit to the insider that is necessary to establish insider trading under Dirks v. SEC requires proof of “an exchange that is objective, consequential, and represents at least a potential gain of a pecuniary or similarly valuable nature,” as the Second Circuit held in United States v. Newman, or whether it is enough that the insider and the tippee shared a close family relationship, as the Ninth Circuit held in this case.
Manuel v. City of Joliet, No. 14-9496 [Arg: 10.5.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether an individual’s Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizure continues beyond legal process so as to allow a malicious prosecution claim based upon the Fourth Amendment.
Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, No. 15-777 [Arg: 10.11.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether, where a design patent is applied to only a component of a product, an award of infringer’s profits should be limited to those profits attributable to the component.
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, No. 15-606 [Arg: 10.11.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
Manrique v. U.S., No. 15-7250 [Arg: 10.11.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether a notice of appeal from a sentencing judgment deferring restitution is effective to challenge the validity of a later-issued restitution award.

November Sitting

Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, No. 15-866 [Arg: 10.31.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): What is the appropriate test to determine when a feature of a useful article is protectable under section 101 of the Copyright Act.
Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, No. 15-497 [Arg: 10.31.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986 commands exhaustion in a suit, brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, that seeks damages – a remedy that is not available under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. CVSG: 05/20/2016.
SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC, No. 15-927 [Arg: 11.1.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether and to what extent the defense of laches may bar a claim for patent infringement brought within the Patent Act’s six-year statutory limitations period, 35 U.S.C. § 286.
State Farm Fire and Casualty Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15-513 [Arg: 11.1.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): What standard governs the decision whether to dismiss a relator's claim for violation of the False Claims Act's seal requirement.
Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne Int'l, No. 15-423 [Arg: 11.2.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the pleading standard for alleging that a case falls within the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act’s expropriation exception is more demanding than the standard for pleading jurisdiction under the federal-question statute, which allows a jurisdictional dismissal only if the federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous. CVSG: 05/24/2016.
National Labor Relations Board v. SW General, No. 15-1251 [Arg: 11.7.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): Whether the precondition in 5 U.S.C. 3345(b)(1) on service in an acting capacity by a person nominated by the President to fill the office on a permanent basis, requiring that a person who is nominated to fill a vacant office that is subject to the Federal Vacancies Reform Act may not perform the office’s functions and duties in an acting capacity unless the person served as first assistant to the vacant office for at least 90 days in the year preceding the vacancy, applies only to first assistants who take office under subsection (a)(1) of 5 U.S.C. 3345, or whether it also limits acting service by officials who assume acting responsibilities under subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3).
Lightfoot v. Cendant Mortgage Corporation, No. 14-1055 [Arg: 11.8.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the phrase “to sue and be sued, and to complain and to defend, in any court of competent jurisdiction, State or Federal” in the charter of the Federal National Mortgage Association (“Fannie Mae”) confers original jurisdiction over every case brought by or against Fannie Mae to the federal courts; and (2) whether the Court's decision in American National Red Cross v. S.G. should be reversed. CVSG: 05/23/2016.
Wells Fargo & Co. v. City of Miami, No. 15-1112 [Arg: 11.8.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the term “aggrieved” in the Fair Housing Act imposes a zone-of-interests requirement more stringent than the injury-in-fact requirement of Article III; and (2) whether the City is an “aggrieved person” under the Fair Housing Act.
Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami, No. 15-1111 [Arg: 11.8.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether, by limiting suit to “aggrieved person[s],” Congress required that a Fair Housing Act plaintiff plead more than just Article III injury-in-fact; and (2) whether proximate cause requires more than just the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through some theoretical chain of contingencies.
Lynch v. Morales-Santana, No. 15-1191 [Arg: 11.9.2016 Trans./Aud.]
Issue(s): (1) Whether Congress’s decision to impose a different physical-presence requirement on unwed citizen mothers of foreign-born children than on other citizen parents of foreign-born children through 8 U.S.C. 1401 and 1409 (1958) violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection; and (2) whether the court of appeals erred in conferring U.S. citizenship on respondent, in the absence of any express statutory authority to do so.

December Sitting

Beckles v. U.S., No. 15-8544 [Arg: 11.28.2016]
Issue(s): (1) Whether Johnson v. United States applies retroactively to collateral cases challenging federal sentences enhanced under the residual clause in United States Sentencing Guidelines (U.S.S.G.) § 4B1.2(a)(2) (defining “crime of violence”); (2) whether Johnson's constitutional holding applies to the residual clause in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2(a)(2), thereby rendering challenges to sentences enhanced under it cognizable on collateral review; and (3) whether mere possession of a sawed-off shotgun, an offense listed as a “crime of violence” only in commentary to U.S.S.G. § 4B1.2, remains a “crime of violence” after Johnson.
Moore v. Texas, No. 15-797 [Arg: 11.29.2016]
Issue(s): Whether it violates the Eighth Amendment and this Court’s decisions in Hall v. Florida and Atkins v. Virginia to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability, and require the use of outdated medical standards, in determining whether an individual may be executed.
Jennings v. Rodriguez, No. 15-1204 [Arg: 11.30.2016]
Issue(s): (1) Whether aliens seeking admission to the United States who are subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release into the United States, if detention lasts six months; (2) whether criminal or terrorist aliens who are subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) must be afforded bond hearings, with the possibility of release, if detention lasts six months; and (3) whether, in bond hearings for aliens detained for six months under Sections 1225(b), 1226(c), or 1226(a), the alien is entitled to release unless the government demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is a flight risk or a danger to the community, whether the length of the alien’s detention must be weighed in favor of release, and whether new bond hearings must be afforded automatically every six months.
Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections, No. 15-680 [Arg: 12.5.2016]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the court below erred in holding that race cannot predominate even where it is the most important consideration in drawing a given district unless the use of race results in “actual conflict” with traditional districting criteria; (2) whether the court below erred by concluding that the admitted use of a one-size-fits-all 55% black voting age population floor to draw twelve separate House of Delegates districts did not amount to racial predominance and trigger strict scrutiny; (3) whether the court below erred in disregarding the admitted use of race in drawing district lines in favor of examining circumstantial evidence regarding the contours of the districts; (4) whether the court below erred in holding that racial goals must negate all other districting criteria in order for race to predominate; and (5) whether the court below erred in concluding that the General Assembly's predominant use of race in drawing House District 75 was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
McCrory v. Harris, No. 15-1262 [Arg: 12.5.2016]
Issue(s): (1) Whether the court below erred in presuming racial predominance from North Carolina's reasonable reliance on this Court's holding in Bartlett v. Strickland that a district created to ensure that African Americans have an equal opportunity to elect their preferred candidate of choice complies with the Voting Rights Act (VRA) if it contains a numerical majority of African Americans; (2) whether the court below erred in applying a standard of review that required the State to demonstrate its construction of North Carolina Congressional District 1 was “actually necessary” under the VRA instead of simply showing it had “good reasons” to believe the district, as created, was needed to foreclose future vote dilution claims; (3) whether the court below erred in relieving plaintiffs of their burden to prove “race rather than politics” predominated with proof of an alternative plan that achieves the legislature's political goals, is comparably consistent with traditional redistricting principles, and brings about greater racial balance than the challenged districts; (4) whether, regardless of any other error, the three-judge court's finding of racial gerrymandering violations was based on clearly erroneous fact-finding; (5) whether the court below erred in failing to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as being barred by claim preclusion or issue preclusion; and (6) whether, in the interests of judicial comity and federalism, the Court should order full briefing and oral argument to resolve the split between the court below and the North Carolina Supreme Court which reached the opposite result in a case raising identical claims.
Life Technologies Corporation v. Promega Corporation, No. 14-1538 [Arg: 12.6.2016]
Issue(s): Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that supplying a single, commodity component of a multi-component invention from the United States is an infringing act under 35 U.S.C. § 271(f)(1), exposing the manufacturer to liability for all worldwide sales. CVSG: 05/11/2016.
Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corporation, No. 15-649 [Arg: 12.7.2016]
Issue(s): Whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds in a manner that violates the statutory priority scheme. CVSG: 05/23/2016.

Decided without oral argument

Bosse v. Oklahoma, No. 15-9173 [ Decided 10.11.2016]
Holding: The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals erred in concluding that it was not bound by the Supreme Court’s holding in Booth v. Maryland that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a capital-sentencing jury from considering testimony by a victim’s family members about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence.

Cases Not (Yet) Set for Argument

Hernández v. Mesa, No. 15-118
Issue(s): (1) Whether a formalist or functionalist analysis governs the extraterritorial application of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unjustified deadly force, as applied to a cross-border shooting of an unarmed Mexican citizen in an enclosed area controlled by the United States; (2) whether qualified immunity may be granted or denied based on facts – such as the victim’s legal status – unknown to the officer at the time of the incident; and (3) whether the claim in this case may be asserted under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents. CVSG: 03/01/2016.
Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214
Issue(s): Whether, in a regulatory taking case, the “parcel as a whole” concept as described in Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, establishes a rule that two legally distinct but commonly owned contiguous parcels must be combined for takings analysis purposes.
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker, No. 15-457
Issue(s): Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to review an order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice.
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia v. Pauley, No. 15-577
Issue(s): Whether the exclusion of churches from an otherwise neutral and secular aid program violates the Free Exercise and Equal Protection Clauses when the state has no valid Establishment Clause concern.
Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District, No. 15-827
Issue(s): What is the level of educational benefit that school districts must confer on children with disabilities to provide them with the free appropriate public education guaranteed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. CVSG: 08/18/2016.
Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194
Issue(s): Whether, under the court’s First Amendment precedents, a law that makes it a felony for any person on the state's registry of former sex offenders to “access” a wide array of websites – including Facebook, YouTube, and nytimes.com – that enable communication, expression, and the exchange of information among their users, if the site is “know[n]” to allow minors to have accounts, is permissible, both on its face and as applied to petitioner, who was convicted based on a Facebook post in which he celebrated dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring “God is Good!”
McLane Co. v. EEOC, No. 15-1248
Issue(s): Whether a district court’s decision to quash or enforce an EEOC subpoena should be reviewed de novo, which only the Ninth Circuit does, or should be reviewed deferentially, which eight other circuits do, consistent with this Court’s precedents concerning the choice of standards of review.
Nelson v. Colorado, No. 15-1256
Issue(s): Whether Colorado’s requirement that defendants must prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence to get their money back, after reversal of conviction of a crime entailing various monetary penalties, is consistent with due process.
Lee v. Tam, No. 15-1293
Issue(s): Whether the disparagement provision of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. 1052(a), which provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it “[c]onsists of . . . matter which may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute” is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.
Ziglar v. Abbasi, No. 15-1358
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Court of Appeals, in finding that Respondents' Fifth Amendment claims did not arise in a “new context” for purposes of implying a remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, erred by defining “context” at too high a level of generality where Respondents challenge the actions taken in the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001 regarding the detention of persons illegally in the United States whom the FBI had arrested in connection with its investigation of the September 11 attacks, thereby implicating concerns regarding national security, immigration, and the separation of powers; (2) whether the Court of Appeals, in denying qualified immunity to Petitioner Ziglar erred: (A) by failing to focus on the specific context of the case to determine whether the violative nature of Mr. Ziglar's specific conduct was at the time clearly established, instead defining the “established law” at the high level of generality that this Court has warned against; and (B) by finding that even though the applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) to the actions of federal officials like Petitioner Ziglar was not clearly established at the time in question, Respondents nevertheless could maintain a § 1985(3) claim against him so long as his conduct violated some other clearly established law; and (3) whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that Respondents' Fourth Amended Complaint met the pleading requirements of Ashcroft v. Iqbal , and related cases, because that complaint relied on allegations of hypothetical possibilities, conclusional assumptions, and unsupported insinuations of discriminatory intent that, at best, are merely consistent with Petitioner Ziglar's liability, but fall short of stating plausible claims.
Ashcroft v. Abbasi, No. 15-1359
Issue(s): (1) Whether the judicially inferred damages remedy under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, should be extended to the novel context of this case, which seeks to hold the former Attorney General and Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) personally liable for policy decisions made about national-security and immigration in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks; and (2) whether the former Attorney General and FBI Director are entitled to qualified immunity for their alleged role in the treatment of respondents, because it was not clearly established that aliens legitimately arrested during the September 11 investigation could not be held in restrictive conditions until the FBI confirmed that they had no connections with terrorism; and (3) whether respondents' allegations that the Attorney General and FBI Director personally condoned the implementation of facially constitutional policies because of an invidious animus against Arabs and Muslims are plausible, as required by Ashcroft v. Iqbal, in light of the obvious alternative explanation—identified by the Court in Iqbal—that their actions were motivated by a concern that, absent fuller investigation, the government would unwittingly permit a dangerous individual to leave the United States.
Hasty v. Abbasi, No. 15-1363
Issue(s): (1) Whether, as the Second Circuit held, the judicially implied cause of action for damages against individual officials recognized in Bivens v. Six Unknown Named of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, extends to detentions of foreign nationals after the September 11 attacks; (2) whether qualified immunity was property denied, notwithstanding the specific circumstances confronted by petitioners—including the FBI's terrorism designations for respondents—because the Constitution “clearly” prohibits any “condition of pretrial detention not reasonably related to a legitimate governmental objective,” or imposed “because of . . . race, ethnicity, religion, and/or national origin;” and (3) whether the allegations against Hasty and Sherman (the Warden and Associate Warden at the Metropolitan Detention Center)—such as the assertion that they “knew” the FBI's terrorism designations for respondents were wrong but imposed otherwise mandatory confinement conditions because they had discriminatory intent—are sufficiently plausible to state a claim under Ashcroft v. Iqbal.
Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, No. 15-1391
Issue(s): Whether state no-surcharge laws unconstitutionally restrict speech conveying price information (as the Eleventh Circuit has held), or regulate economic conduct (as the Second and Fifth Circuits have held).
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, No. 15-1406
Issue(s): Whether a federal court is required to tailor compensatory civil sanctions imposed under inherent powers to harm directly caused by sanctionable misconduct when the court does not afford sanctioned parties the protections of criminal due process.
Lynch v. Dimaya, No. 15-1498
Issue(s): Whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions governing an alien's removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague.
Lewis v. Clarke, No. 15-1500
Issue(s): Whether the sovereign immunity of an Indian tribe bars individual-capacity damages actions against tribal employees for torts committed within the scope of their employment.
Dean v. U.S., No. 15-9260
Issue(s): Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Pepper v. United States overruled United States v. Hatcher and related opinions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit to the extent that those opinions limit the district court's discretion to consider the mandatory consecutive sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) in determining the appropriate sentence for the felony serving as the basis for the Section 924(c) conviction.
Kindred Nursing Centers Limited Partnership v. Clark, No. 16-32
Issue(s): Whether the Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts a state-law contract rule that singles out arbitration by requiring a power of attorney to expressly refer to arbitration agreements before the attorney-in-fact can bind her principal to an arbitration agreement.
Esquivel-Quintana v. Lynch, No. 16-54
Issue(s): Whether a conviction under one of the seven state statutes criminalizing consensual sexual intercourse between a 21-year-old and someone almost 18 constitutes an “aggravated felony” of “sexual abuse of a minor” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act – and therefore constitutes grounds for mandatory removal.
Coventry Health Care of Missouri v. Nevils, No. 16-149
Issue(s): (1) Whether the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act pre-empts state laws that prevent carriers from seeking subrogation or reimbursement pursuant to their FEHBA contracts; and (2) whether FEHBA's express-pre-emption provision, 5 U.S.C. § 8902(m)(1), which expressly “preempt[s] any State or local law” that would prevent enforcement of “the terms of any contract” between the Office of Personnel Management and a carrier which “relate to the nature, provision, or extent of coverage or benefits (including payments with respect to benefits)[,]” violates the supremacy clause.
Gloucester County School Board v. G.G., No. 16-273
Issue(s): (1) Whether courts should extend deference to an unpublished agency letter that, among other things, does not carry the force of law and was adopted in the context of the very dispute in which deference is sought; and (2) whether, with or without deference to the agency, the Department of Education's specific interpretation of Title IX and 34 C.F.R. § 106.33, which provides that a funding recipient providing sex-separated facilities must “generally treat transgender students consistent with their gender identity,” should be given effect.
Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, No. 16-348
Issue(s): (1) Whether the filing of an accurate proof of claim for an unextinguished time-barred debt in a bankruptcy proceeding violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act; and (2) whether the Bankruptcy Code, which governs the filing of proofs of claim in bankruptcy, precludes the application of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to the filing of an accurate proof of claim for an unextinguished time-barred debt.

SCOTUS - History

Here are some facts about the Supreme Court Of The United States.  Information was provided by Kathleen McCleary | Parade | February 7, 2016
 

Who Are The Justices of SCOTUS? 


What type of cases heard by the SCOTUS?

Birth, death, marriage, life, what it means to be a person, to have equal rights, to be fair—this is the stuff the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) examines every year, making decisions that become the law of the land.

“The justices of the Supreme Court establish—by interpreting laws and a constitution—a set of laws for the country. Without that we have no laws,” says Nina Totenberg, legal affairs correspondent for National Public Radio.

Thousands of cases are sent to the Court every year. If four of the nine justices agree a case should be heard, the Court asks the federal courts to send up all the information about the case so they can review it (known as granting a writ of certiorari). The Court chooses cases with national significance: Do kids have the right to pray in school? Should workers pay fees to labor unions if they don’t want to be a member? Did President Obama exceed his powers in trying to protect illegal immigrants from deportation? They also take cases when the lower courts can’t agree how to interpret the law involved; SCOTUS’ decision then becomes the precedent that every court in the U.S. has to follow.


DID YOU KNOW?

  • The Supreme Court building is one of the only federal buildings ever to come in under budget. Congress authorized $9,740,000 for its construction; the building was completed and furnished for $94,000 less. The remainder was returned to the Treasury.
  • 10,000 - Approximate number of cases that appeal every year to the Supreme Court
  • 75–80 - Number of cases the Court agrees to hear
  • $249,300 - Yearly salary of the justices (the chief makes $11,400 more)
  • 30 - Maximum number of minutes an attorney has to argue a case
  • 100–150 - Number of first-come, first-served public seats in the courtroom
  • 0 - TV cameras in the courtroom. Proceedings are never televised for security reasons and to discourage lawyers from playing to the camera or being intimidated or influenced by the presence of the media.

 

Test your knowledge about the SCOTUS - Here!

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - GOP starts 2016 with repeal attempt

https://www.healthcare.gov/


Liberty University vs Lew - Case #13-306
 
Petition Denied - 12.02.13

Supreme Court dismisses challenge to Obamacare mandate
by Joan McCarter

12.02.13 - The last, great hope of Republicans to see Obamacare killed outright is officially dead. They haven't been able to repeal it. They ran a presidential campaign on ending it, and were overwhelmingly rejected. The Supreme Court decided not to overturn the entire law once already, and has now dismissed the last big case challenging the underpinnings of the law.

The court rejected a petition filed by Liberty University, a Christian college in Virginia, which had raised various objections to the law, including to the key provision that requires individuals to obtain health insurance. [...]

By rejecting the Liberty University case, the justices left intact a 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals of a May 2013 decision that dismissed the claims made by the college and two individuals, Michele Waddell and Joanne Merrill.

They're not going to kill it outright. They're officially out of opportunities. They're out of time legislatively, since they're going on the long recess on December 13. They'll have to change strategies now, because after January 1 repeal means taking people's insurance away, something even most Republicans will recognize isn't politically smart.  So now it's going to be more efforts to chip away, to refuse to allow any fixes, to create as many obstacles as possible at the state level for implementation. All of which they will do, because it's now their entire reason for being.


7.18.12
- FACTS about The Affordable Care Act:

  • No lifetime limit on coverage for 105 million Americans.
  • Up to 17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied coverage by insurers.
  • 6.6 million young adults up to age 26 have taken advantage of the law to obtain health insurance through their parents’ plan.
  • Free coverage for comprehensive preventive services for millions of women starting in August.
  • 86 million Americans, including 32 million seniors in Medicare, have already received free preventive services.
  • 5.3 million seniors have already saved $3.7 billion on their prescription drugs.
  • Since the health care law was enacted in March 2010, 4.2 million private sector jobs have been created – many of them in the health care industry.
  • The Small Business Health Care Tax Credit has already been used by 360,000 small businesses to help insure 2 million workers.
  • $1.1 billion in rebates from health insurance companies this summer will benefit nearly 13 million Americans.
  • The health care law reduces the deficit by $124 billion over the next 10 years and over $1 trillion over the following decade.

Source:  www.dccc.org/Obamacare


Who will pay taxes, fees according to the new Affordable Care Act?

  • Higher Medicare tax on individuals with income above $200,000; couples above $250,000
  • Tax on high-cost insurance plans
  • Annual fee paid by insurers
  • Fee on drug makers; tax on medical manufacturers
  • Penalty on employers who don't insure workers
  • Penalty on individuals who don't buy insurance
  • Limited deductions for health expenses paid by individuals claiming $7,500 or more in health expenses
  • 10% tax on tanning salon visits paid by people who use tanning salons
  • Higher tax on home sales for individuals who make more than $250,000 and couples who make more than $500,000 in profit on the sale of their homes

Source:  Joint Committee on Taxation

____________________


6.28.12 — The United States Supreme Court upheld in its entirety President Obama's health care law, The Affordable Care Act, today.  In a 5-4 decision with Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative appointed by President George W. Bush, providing the swing vote.  This is a major victory for President Obama as Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell vows to double Republican efforts to repeal the entire law.

What the Supreme Court's ruling means for your health care.

Today, the Supreme Court issued a historic ruling: They upheld the Affordable Care Act and ensured that millions of American families will have access to health care and protection from the worst abuses of the insurance industry.

Lots of people have questions about the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court's decision, and their health care coverage. We've pulled together the most useful information — including President Obama's remarks after the announcement — at WhiteHouse.gov.

Watch the video and get the facts here.

Read the President's full remarks here.

____________________

Health Reform providing security to working families

  • Working families are protected from losing their health care or being forced into bankruptcy when a family member gets sick or is in an accident. Families have the security of knowing their health insurance will be there when they need it most.
  • Insurance companies are now required to justify rate hikes, and consumers have the ability to appeal to an independent third party when insurance companies refuse to cover services or care.
  • Starting in 2014, all Americans will have access to affordable health insurance no matter their circumstances — whether they change jobs, lose their job, decide to start a business, or retire early. Purchasing private insurance in the new state-based health insurance exchanges could save middle-class families who can’t get employer-provided insurance thousands of dollars.
  • Once fully implemented, the law will slow health care premium growth rates, adding another $2,000 to family savings by 2019.
  • The Affordable Care Act is expected to reduce the deficit by $127 billion from 2012 to 2021.

Women and Health Reform

20.4 million women with private insurance now can soon get free preventive care. That means they can get life-saving cancer screenings like mammograms and can have their contraception covered without paying a co-pay or deductible. Women are living healthier lives while saving money at the same time.  The Affordable Care Act will also prevent insurance companies from discriminating against women so that being a woman is no longer considered a pre-existing condition.

Young People and Health Reform

Young adults are now eligible to stay on their parents’ health insurance plans as they enter the workforce, until they turn 26. Since the health care law passed, 2.5 million young adults — traditionally the group least likely to be insured — gained insurance because of The Affordable Care Act.

Small Business and Health Reform

Under The Affordable Care Act, help for small businesses — including the new insurance exchanges — will reduce small business health care spending by nearly 9 percent, according to independent estimates.  Millions of small businesses are now eligible for a tax credit to help pay for their health care premiums. The credit will increase to cover 50 percent of premium costs in 2014.

Ending discrimination for pre-existing conditions

The Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) provides insurance to people of all ages with health conditions who have been uninsured for six months, helping those with cancer or other serious conditions to get the treatment they need.  Before The Affordable Care Act, insurance companies could deny coverage to children with medical conditions. Thanks to The Affordable Care Act, as many as 17 million children with pre-existing conditions can no longer be denied health insurance.

Ending lifetime limits

Before The Affordable Care Act, more than half of all private insurance plans included a lifetime limit on coverage — and nearly 20,000 people hit a lifetime cap each year. The Affordable Care Act banned these caps, and those who had already hit a lifetime limit will be eligible for unlimited coverage.

Strengthening Medicare

More than 47 million Medicare beneficiaries now have access to free health services — including an annual wellness visit, mammograms, and other health screenings — to help detect and treat medical conditions early.  Thanks to The Affordable Care Act, nearly 3.6 million seniors who fell into the Medicare “doughnut hole” during 2011 saved an average of $604 on prescription drugs.  In 2011, The Affordable Care Act saved women who fell into the 'doughnut hole' on Medicare more than $1.2 billion on the cost of prescription drugs.

 

Top 10 benefits received from The Affordable Care Act

  1. Before health reform, insurance companies used a practice called 'gender rating' which means women could be charged more than men for the exact same insurance policy.  By 2014, The Affordable Care Act will end 'gender rating'.
  2. Insurance companies now cover all FDA approved contraception without extra co-pays.
  3. Insurance companies now cover mammograms and pap smears without extra co-pays.  In the future, well-woman visits and domestic violence screenings will be included.
  4. Insurance companies now cover maternity care.
  5. Insurance companies now cover breastfeeding equipment and support.
  6. Children with pre-existing conditions are now protected.  Soon insurance companies will not be able to deny women coverage for 'pre-existing conditions' such as pregnancy, having had a C-section or being a survivor of domestic violence.  
  7. Insurance exchanges will help consumers compare insurance policies.  Women make 80% of the health care decisions in the United States.
  8. New tax credits are now available to help small businesses provide coverage to all their employees.  Women are more likely than men to work for small businesses that don't offer health insurance.
  9. Young adults now benefit from a new rule that allows young adults to remain on their parents' health insurance policy as a dependent until age 26.  Young women under the age of 26 are more likely to be uninsured than women in any other age group.
  10. Seniors now benefit from a provision that is starting to close the Medicare Part D 'doughnut hole' gap which requires Seniors to spend a considerable amount out-of-pocket for prescription drugs.  The 'doughnut hole' gap will be completely closed by 2020.