Jonathan H. Adler | |
---|---|
Born | Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. |
Academic background | |
Education | Yale University (BA) George Mason University (JD) |
Academic work | |
Discipline | Jurisprudence |
Sub-discipline | Administrative law Constitutional law Environmental law |
Institutions | Competitive Enterprise Institute Case Western Reserve University School of Law Cato Institute |
Jonathan H. Adler is an American legal commentator and law professor at the Case Western Reserve University School of Law. He has been recognized as one of the most cited professors in the field of environmental law. [1] His research is also credited with inspiring litigation that challenged the Obama Administration's implementation of the Affordable Care Act,resulting in the Supreme Court's decision in King v. Burwell . [2]
Adler was born in Philadelphia. He graduated from Friends' Central School in Wynnewood,Pennsylvania,then studied history at Yale University,graduating in 1991 with a B.A.,magna cum laude. From 1991 to 2000,Adler was a policy analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute,a libertarian think tank in Washington,DC. He attended the George Mason University School of Law as an evening student,becoming an editor of the George Mason Law Review . He graduated in 2000 ranked first in his class with a J.D.,summa cum laude. [3]
After law school,Adler was a law clerk for Judge David B. Sentelle of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit from 2000 to 2001. From 1991 to 2000,he worked at the conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute,where he directed the Institute's environmental studies program,and worked on environmental policy matters. [3] Although a proponent of "free-market environmentalism," Adler has also endorsed the imposition of a carbon tax and other measures to address the problem of climate change. [4] He is also credited with helping to convince some former climate change deniers to accept the scientific evidence for global warming and the associated threat. [5] Adler is currently one of the most cited law professors in the fields of administrative and environmental law. [6]
Adler supported former Republican Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson in the 2008 presidential election. [7] In 2012,Adler headed a screening committee appointed by Ohio governor John Kasich to assist him in selecting an appointee to fill an open seat on the Ohio Supreme Court. [8] Adler again participated in the selection process to fill an open Ohio Supreme Court seat in 2017. Hs has also served on the Bipartisan Judicial Advisory Commission appointed by Ohio Senators Sherrod Brown and Rob Portman to advise on federal district court nominations. [ citation needed ]
In 2018,Adler was a founding member of Checks and Balances. [9] As part of Checks and Balances,Adler has joined multiple statements criticizing former President Trump and defending rule of law values.
Adler's research and writing on the Affordable Care Act is credited with inspiring litigation that led to a U.S. Supreme Court challenge to the lawfulness of tax credits in states that failed to create their own health insurance exchanges. [2] Adler first wrote an article for a 2011 health care symposium in which he argued that the text of the Affordable Care Act did not authorize tax credits in states that refused to set up their own health insurance exchanges. [10] At the time,this did not seem like a significant observation as the Supreme Court had not yet decided NFIB v. Sebelius and it appeared that most states would voluntarily create their own exchanges. [11]
As states started to resist implementing the Affordable Care Act,Adler co-authored several pieces with Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute,arguing that that an IRS rule authorizing tax credits in states that did not create their own exchanges would be unlawful. [12] [13] Adler and Cannon's arguments were controversial,and prompted significant academic response. [14] Adler and Cannon's work also prompted several lawsuits challenging the lawfulness of the tax credits,including Halbig v. Sebelius and King v. Burwell. [15]
Adler and Cannon filed amicus briefs defending their research in several of the cases. In the end,however,the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Adler and Cannon's interpretation by a 6–3 vote in King v. Burwell. Adler's scholarship has also been relied upon in other Supreme Court cases,and was cited by Chief Justice Roberts in his City of Arlington v. FCC dissent [16] and by Justice Gorsuch in Kisor v. Wilkie. [17]
Adler is currently a tenured professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law in Cleveland,where he teaches courses in environmental,regulatory,and constitutional law. He is the director of the law school's Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Regulation. [18] In 2011,Adler was named the inaugural holder of the Johan Verheij Memorial Professorship at CWRU. [19]
Adler is a contributing editor to the conservative National Review Online and a contributor to "The Volokh Conspiracy". He blogged anonymously under the pseudonym "Juan Non-Volokh" at "The Volokh Conspiracy" until May 1,2006. [20]
Adler serves on the advisory board of the NFIB Legal Foundation,and the Environmental Law Reporter and ELI Press Advisory Board of the Environmental Law Institute. [3]
In 2004,Adler received the Paul M. Bator Award. In 2007,the Case Western Reserve University Law Alumni Association awarded Adler their annual "Distinguished Teacher Award." [3]
In 2001,Adler moved to Cleveland,Ohio,where he met his wife,Christina. [3]
The Volokh Conspiracy is a legal blog co-founded in 2002 by law professor Eugene Volokh, covering legal and political issues from an ideological orientation it describes as "generally libertarian, conservative, centrist, or some mixture of these." It is one of the most widely read and cited legal blogs in the United States. The blog is written by legal scholars and provides discussion on complex court decisions.
Sylvia Mary Burwell is an American government and non-profit executive who has been the 15th president of American University since June 1, 2017. Burwell is the first woman to serve as the university's president. Burwell earlier served as the 22nd United States Secretary of Health and Human Services. President Barack Obama nominated Burwell on April 11, 2014. Burwell's nomination was confirmed by the Senate on June 5, 2014, by a vote of 78–17. She served as Secretary until the end of the Obama administration. Previously, she had been the Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget from 2013 to 2014.
Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jonathan Holmes Gruber is an American professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1992. He is also the director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a research associate. An associate editor of both the Journal of Public Economics and the Journal of Health Economics, Gruber has been heavily involved in crafting public health policy.
Reed Charles O'Connor is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. He was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2007.
A health insurance mandate is either an employer or individual mandate to obtain private health insurance instead of a national health insurance plan.
The Affordable Care Act (ACA), formally known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and colloquially as Obamacare, is a landmark U.S. federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amendment, it represents the U.S. healthcare system's most significant regulatory overhaul and expansion of coverage since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.
A contraceptive mandate is a government regulation or law that requires health insurers, or employers that provide their employees with health insurance, to cover some contraceptive costs in their health insurance plans.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance by 2014. The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines.
Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA, reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality, several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality, the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld ACA for a third time in a June 2021 decision.
Ilya Somin is a law professor at George Mason University, B. Kenneth Simon Chair in Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, a blogger for the Volokh Conspiracy, and a former co-editor of the Supreme Court Economic Review (2006–2013). His research focuses on constitutional law, property law, migration rights, and the study of popular political participation and its implications for constitutional democracy.
The Fairness for American Families Act is a bill that would "amend the Internal Revenue Code, as amended by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, to delay until 2015 the requirement that individuals maintain minimal essential health care coverage." The bill was introduced into the United States House of Representatives during the 113th United States Congress.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682 (2014), is a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing privately held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation that its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. It is the first time that the Court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to privately held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.
United States House of Representatives v. Azar, et al. was a lawsuit in which the United States House of Representatives sued departments and officials within the executive branch, asserting that President Barack Obama acted illegally in his implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The lawsuit was touted by House Speaker John Boehner, and asserted that President Obama exceeded his constitutional authority in delaying the implementation of the employer mandate of the Affordable Care Act and also addressed "Republican opposition to an estimated $175 billion in payments to insurance companies over the next 10 years as part of a cost-sharing program under the healthcare law."
Timothy S. Jost is Robert L. Willett Family Professor of Law, emeritus, at Washington and Lee University School of Law. A top expert on American health law and policy, he is a co-author of Health Law, a casebook that pioneered health law as a teaching and research field in American law schools. His analysis and arguments regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act have been widely quoted.
The premium tax credit (PTC) is a mechanism established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA) through which the United States federal government partially subsidizes the cost of private health insurance for certain lower- and middle-income individuals and families. The PTC is a refundable tax credit, and may be applied directly to the cost of insurance premiums.
Zubik v. Burwell, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), was a case before the United States Supreme Court on whether religious institutions other than churches should be exempt from the contraceptive mandate, a regulation adopted by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that requires non-church employers to cover certain contraceptives for their female employees. Churches are already exempt under those regulations. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals ruling in Zubik v. Burwell and the six cases it had consolidated under that title and returned them to their respective courts of appeals for reconsideration.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, often shortened to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or nicknamed Obamacare, is a United States federal statute enacted by the 111th United States Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama on March 23, 2010. Together with the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 amendment, it represents the U.S. healthcare system's most significant regulatory overhaul and expansion of coverage since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965. Once the law was signed, provisions began taking effect, in a process that continued for years. Some provisions never took effect, while others were deferred for various periods.
California v. Texas, 593 U.S. 659 (2021), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA), colloquially known as Obamacare. It was the third such challenge to the ACA seen by the Supreme Court since its enactment. The case in California followed after the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and the change to the tax penalty amount for Americans without required insurance that reduced the "individual mandate" to zero, effective for months after December 31, 2018. The District Court of the Northern District of Texas concluded that this individual mandate was a critical provision of the ACA and that, with a penalty amount equal to zero, some or all of the ACA was potentially unconstitutional as an improper use of Congress's taxation powers.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(help)