Thursday round-up
on May 10, 2012 at 9:22 am
The Affordable Care Act remains at the center of attention, with the publication of two new studies discussing the possible implications if the Court were to strike down part or all of the Act. At Bloomberg, Alex Wayne reports on a new study from Fidelity Investments suggesting that retirees would have to pay around $20,000 more per year for medical care if the Court were to strike down the law in its entirety. And at RegBlog, Brian Ryoo highlights a new paper by three economists which argues that an alternative regulatory scheme could accomplish the same results as the mandate.
The recent Seton Hall School of Law study of Guantanamo Bay detainee cases continues to draw coverage. For this blog, Lyle Denniston discusses the study’s findings and the possibility that the Court will grant review of one of the seven recent cases in which Guantanamo detainees have filed for certiorari. Further coverage comes from Howard Bashman at How Appealing and the Associated Press (via the Washington Post).
Briefly:
- At the Washington Post, Adelle Banks reports on how university religious groups are faring since the Court’s 2010 decision in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, upholding a policy requiring campus religious groups to admit openly gay students as a condition of official recognition.
