The case California v. Texas (2021) and its formalisation of a new American trilogy of cases (the “ObamaCare trilogy”) in the field of Social Security
Keywords:
Health care, US Supreme Court, Comparative law, Obamacare, TrilogyAbstract
On the basis that the so-called “ObamaCare” of 2010 was a US law enacted with the aim of achieving almost universal coverage of the right to healthcare, this paper focuses on the analysis of the third case of the so-called “ObamaCare trilogy”, which was decided by the US Supreme Court in 2021, implicitly upholding the legality of the “ObamaCare” as amended in 2017.
Downloads
Article page views
History retained by PKP. Accesses are not unique people and do not guarantee a completed download. Data through: 2026-11-05.
Downloads
References
Arufe Varela, Alberto, Dieciséis grandes casos de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos sobre Derecho colectivo del Trabajo. Un estudio desde la perspectiva del Derecho español, Netbiblo (A Coruña, 2012).
Arufe Varela, Alberto, El Derecho de la Seguridad Social en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos. Un estudio de veintisiete grandes casos, desde la perspectiva del Derecho español, Atelier (Barcelona, 2014).
Blackman, Josh, «Unreviewable: the final installment of the “epic” Obamacare trilogy», Cato Supreme Court Review, vol. 2021 (2021).
Bloodgood, N. y Sanders, L.C., «An overview of the anti-retaliation provision in the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act», Federal Lawyer, núm. 58 (Noviembre/Diciembre 2011).
Cannon, Michael F. y Pohida, J., «Would “Medicare for all” mean quality for all? How public-option principles could reverse Medicare’s negative impact on quality», Quinnipiac Health Law Journal, núm. 25 (2022).
Cedrone, Michael J., «Supreme silence and precedential pragmatism: King v. Burwell and statutory interpretation in the federal courts of appeals», Marquette Law Review, núm. 103 (2019).
Fletcher, Matthew L.M., «The iron cold of the Marshall trilogy», North Dakota Law Review, núm. 82 (2006).
Franklin, M.J., «What is the difference between the Medicaid five-year “look-back” and a Medicaid penalty period», Tennessee Bar Journal, núm. 51 (2015).
Goetting, N., «The Marshall trilogy and the constitutional dehumanization of American indians», Guild Practitioner, núm. 65 (2008).
Gregory, D.L., Zitelli, M.K. y Papadopoulos, C.E., «The fiftieth anniversary of the steelworkers trilogy: Some reflections on judicial review of labor-arbitration decisions —Will gold turn to rust?», Catholic University Law Review, núm. 60 (2010)
Hauschild, J., «Social distancing with your doctor: the promise of telemedicine in Medicare and Medicaid, and how to pay for it», Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, núm. 22 (2021).
Herman, S.N., «Clarence Thomas», en Leon Friedman y Fred L. Israel (Editores), The Justices of the United States Supreme Court. Their lives and major opinions, vol. V, Chelsea House Publishers (Nueva York-Filadelfia, 1997).
Kaldawi, N., «Indigenous health policy in the United States and Latin America: The Marshall trilogy and the international human rights approach», Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, núm. 33 (2016).
Lofaso, A.M., «Deflategate: What’s the steelworkers trilogy got to do with it?», Berkeley Journal of Entertainment & Sports Law, núm. 6 (2017).
Martinez, F., «Qualifying for Medicaid is uttlery different than having Medicaid», Houston Lawyer, núm. 53 (2016).
Martínez Girón, J., Quince grandes casos de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos sobre Derecho individual del Trabajo. Un estudio desde la perspectiva del Derecho español, Netbiblo (A Coruña, 2012).
Martínez Girón, J. y Arufe Varela, A., «El enjuiciamiento de la constitucionalidad de la reforma sanitaria del Presidente Obama por la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos», Revista General de Derecho del Trabajo y de la Seguridad Social, núm. 32 (2012).
Melone, M.A., «King v. Burwell and the Chevron doctrine: did the Court invite judicial activism?», University of Kansas Law Review, núm. 64 (2016).
Sage, W.M., «Adding principle to pragmatism: the transformative potential of “medicare-for-all” in post-pandemic health reform», Yale Journal of Health Policy, Law & Ethics, núm. 20 (2021).
Schwinn, S.D., «The Framers’ federalism and the Affordable Care Act», Connecticut Law Review, núm. 4 (2012).
Trapani, P., «Old presumptions never die: Rethinking the steelworkers trilogy’s presumption of arbitration in deciding the arbitrability of side letters», Tulane Law Review, núm. 83 (2008).
Tribe, Laurence H., «The constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Swimming in the stream of commerce», Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, núm. 35 (2012).
Valenti, A. y Johnson, V., «The impact of King v. Burwell on judicial review of administrative action: an exception to Chevron, a move from textualism, or something else», Houston Business and Tax Law Journal, núm. 18 (2018).
