A Moment of Simple Justice - Revenge Porn
Schoenbrod: SCOTUS Ruling Helps EPA Deal With a "Stupid Statute"
A More Perfect Union: Why Punish Russia for Crimea?
Jail Time for Revenge Porn Offenses?
End Game in the Fight Over Same Sex Marriage?
Is Punishment Dead in America?
Bill on Bankruptcy: Detroit Falls Short on Good-Faith Test
Bill on Bankruptcy: Madoff Victims Rooting for Stanford Victory
Bill on Bankruptcy: Listening in the Dark at the NCBJ
Health Care Antitrust & the Supreme Court – Interview with Bruce Sokler, Member, Mintz Levin
Bill on Bankruptcy: Detroit Shows Need for Amending Bankruptcy Law
Bill on Bankruptcy: Detroit Judge Might Lose Grip on the Case
PennDOT to Increase Number of Pennsylvania Bridges with Weight Restrictions
Harvey Miller: Detroit Will Be In Bankruptcy "For A Long Time"
Grayson: Only 1 Agency Should Regulate Wall Street
Bill on Bankruptcy: Supreme Court Cases Will Have Wide Impact
Coyle: Robert's SCOTUS Doesn't Respect Congress
Goldstein: Expect More Litigation in Wake of Myriad Gene Patent Decision
What's So Funny About The U.S. Constitution? Colin Quinn's Unconstitutional: Off-Broadway
S&C's Cohen: Brown-Vitter Punishes Banks For Being Big
Two federal appeals courts issued contradictory rulings on the validity of subsidies for the purchase of health insurance under the federal marketplace established pursuant to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). On July 22, a...more
In this issue:
- Not-for-Profit Spotlight
- Giving to Religion Trending Downward for a Decade
- What You Can Learn from Giving 2014
- Is the Front Door Closing on the Parsonage...more
During its recently concluded 2013 term, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions in two labor and employment cases, three constitutional or quasi-constitutional cases that impact labor and employment concerns, and one tax...more
On June 30, in one of the most highly anticipated cases affecting the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the Supreme Court ruled that closely held companies could assert a “religious objection” to the ACA contraceptive coverage...more
Amending Retirement Plans to Recognize Same-Sex Marriages Plan sponsors need to review retirement plan documents and operations to determine whether changes are needed in response to last year's Supreme Court decision in U.S....more
In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court held that regulations under the Affordable Care Act that require employer group health plans to provide contraceptive coverage violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)....more
On May 20, 2014, a federal judge in the case of Whitewood v. Wolf struck down both Pennsylvania's ban on marriage for same-sex couples and its prohibition against recognition of same-sex marriages legally entered into in...more
With the passing of the March 31st deadline for the initial open-enrollment under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA” or “ObamaCare”), the resignation of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and the...more
The Internal Revenue Service recently furnished employers with welcome guidance concerning coverage of same-sex spouses in qualified plans.
In a new Notice, the Service discusses how qualified arrangements such as...more
In the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor (Windsor), the Court held that, for federal purposes, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Although the dispute in the Windsor...more
Combative oral arguments were seen in two high profile federal court challenges to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA). The Supreme Court of the United States heard a vigorous oral argument...more
IRS Notice 2014-19 provides long-awaited guidance on the application of the decision in United States v. Windsor to retirement plans qualified under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 401(a). For tax-qualification...more
March 2014 has produced quite a bit of activity regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("ACA"). On March 24, 2014, oral argument was held in the latest challenges to the ACA in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby...more
Traditionally, marriage has been defined in the United States and in the state of Utah as a legal relationship between a man and a woman. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which allowed states to...more
Perhaps coincidence, perhaps not, but on "Cyber Monday" the U.S. Supreme Court refused to "click yes" to consider two cases contesting the constitutionality of click-through-nexus when, as discussed further below, it denied...more
Court Begins 2013-2014 Term -
Upon starting its 2013-2014 term during the government's recent partial shut-down, the U.S. Supreme Court opened with a grant of certiorari in a case with state and local tax implications,...more
Health & Welfare Plans -
Health Care Reform: Supreme Court Grants Review to Two Cases Challenging ACA’s Contraception Coverage Mandate -
The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear two cases challenging...more
The California state legislature recently enacted a law that may affect the taxation of benefits an employer provides to same-sex domestic partners in the state. California AB 362 excludes from gross income for California...more
The United States Supreme Court's landmark Windsor decision in June of this year invalidated certain key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act by holding that the disparate tax treatment of validly married same sex...more
Last week started the 2013-2014 Term at the Supreme Court of the United States. While the hot issues last year were DOMA, Title VII (Vance v. Ball State University and University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v....more
The Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor have issued recent guidance to clarify the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Windsor. The new guidance addresses some of the implications of the federal...more
Employers extending benefit coverage to employees’ same-sex spouses and partners should review their payroll procedures to ensure that such coverages are properly taxed for federal income and FICA tax purposes. Employers...more
The recent United States Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The ruling greatly expands the...more
Recent guidance issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provides some initial...more
As we previously reported, in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act provides...more
Find a Constitutional Law Author »
Back to Top