Now in its 14th year, this acclaimed annual publication brings together leading legal scholars to analyze the most important cases of the Court's most recent term and preview the year ahead. It is the first scholarly review to appear after the term's end and the only one to critique the court from a Madisonian perspective. This year's Review looks at the Supreme Court's recent decisions involving tax credits available to individuals who purchase health insurance on the federal exchange (King v. Burwell), the Fourteenth Amendment and same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges), religious accommodation, racial discrimination, property rights, environment regulation, and more.
Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow in constitutional studies and editor-in-chief of the Cato Supreme Court Review. Before joining Cato he was Special Assistant/Advisor to the Multi-National Force-Iraq on rule of law issues; practiced international, political, commercial, and antitrust litigation at Patton Boggs LLP and Cleary Gottlieb LLP; and clerked on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Mr. Shapiro has written for a wide variety of publications and regularly appears on TV and radio to comment on legal issues. Mr. Shapiro holds degrees from Princeton University, the London School of Economics, and the University of Chicago Law School, and has been an adjunct professor at the George Washington University Law School.
FOREWORD - The Review's publisher contrasts the reasoning of the chief justice in King v. Burwell and Obergefell v. Hodges. By Roger Pilon AFFORDABLE CARE ACT - King v. Burwell - Are tax credits available to individuals who purchase health insurance on the federal exchange? By Jonathan H. Adler & Michael F. Cannon AFFORDABLE CARE ACT - King v. Burwell - Broader issues relating to the exchange established by the state" statutory debate, including federalism. By James F. Blumstein SAME SEX MARRIAGE - Obergefell v. Hodges - Does the Fourteenth Amendment require states to recognize and license same-sex marriages? By William Eskridge, Jr. RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION - EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch - Must employers inquire into individuals' religious preferences in order to provide accommodations? By Walter Olson RACIAL DISCRIMINATION - Texas Dept. of Housing & Comm. Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project - Are disparate-impact claims allowed under the Fair Housing Act? By Roger Clegg ANTITRUST AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING - N.C. Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC - The antitrust implications of state boards composed of industry participants. By Timothy Sandefur CRIMINAL STATUTORY INTERPRETATION - Yates v. United States - Does Sarbanes-Oxley's anti-shredding provision apply to the disposal of fish? By John G. Malcolm PRIVACY - Los Angeles v. Patel - Can police departments inspect hotel-guest information on demand and without a warrant? By Luke Milligan environmental regulation - Michigan v. EPA - Must administrative agencies consider the costs of their rules before issuing them? By Andrew M. Grossman property rights - Horne v. Department of Agriculture - Must the government pay just compensation when it confiscates personal property (here, raisins)? By Michael W. McConnell Administrative procedure - Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assoc. - Is there a difference between legislative" and interpretive" rules under the Administrative Procedure Act? By Adam J. White DELEGATING LEGISLATIVE POWER - Dept. of Transportation v. Association of American Railroads - For purposes of regulating passenger railroad services, is Amtrak a governmental entity? By Alexander Volokh SPECIAL FEATURES INCLUDE MINIMALISM AND ITS LIMITS - In this written version of the 2014 B. Kenneth Simon Lecture in Constitutional Thought, Judge Diane S. Sykes examines minimalism as a theory of judicial decision making. LOOKING AHEAD - Noted Supreme Court advocate John P. Elwood outlines and predicts the 2015-2016 term.
