Access to Medicaid: Recognizing Rights to Ensure Access to Care and Services

Colleen Nicholson* The Supreme Court has defined Medicaid as “a cooperative federal-state program through which the Federal Government provides financial assistance to States so that they may furnish medical care to needy individuals.”1 In June 2012, the Court found the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s (PPACA) Medicaid expansion unconstitutional.2 The Court took issue with the threat to withhold all of a state’s Medicaid funding if they did not comply with the expansion, finding it coercive and a fundamental shift in the Medicaid paradigm.3 However, Medicaid in its current form may not always be effective at providing beneficiaries with timely access to the care to which they are entitled.4 For Medicaid to function as intended, Congress must amend the definition of “medical assistance” in the Medicaid Act and give Medicaid beneficiaries and providers an enforceable federal right to sue the states when they do not set provider reimbursement rates at levels that are adequate to attract sufficient Medicaid providers to provide enumerated services for enrollees. Read More

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Antiquated and Oft-Abused Occupation Tax: A Call for Abolition

Edmund W. Appleton* Under Pennsylvania law, counties, cities, boroughs, first-class townships, municipalities, and school districts can levy an occupation tax.1 An occupation tax taxes an individual based on the individual’s occupation, which, historically, was considered to be a form of transferable property.2 Not only is the occupation tax based on an outdated model of employment practices, but it is also a source of abuse and inequity.3Consequently, the occupation tax should be abolished in favor of other more just taxation models. Read More

Notice is Not Enough: Why TILA Requires More Than a Letter of Intent

Levi Smith* The federal Truth in Lending Act1 (TILA) provides borrowers with protections and remedies against certain actions by lenders. TILA allows, in some circumstances, a borrower to rescind a loan from a lender within a three-year period from when the loan is made. However, a circuit split has developed regarding how the right to rescind must be exercised. Of the circuits that have considered this question, some require a lawsuit to be filed within the three-year period to rescind the loan.2 Other circuits have held that providing notice of the intent to rescind the loan within the three-year period is sufficient to rescind the loan, even if a lawsuit is not filed until beyond the three-year time limit.3 This Comment argues that in order to rescind the loan, courts should require that an actual lawsuit be filed before the three-year period expires. Read More

Every High Has a Low: A Pragmatic Approach to the War on Drugs

Mark Garibyan* One of the lasting vestiges of Richard Nixon’s presidency is the infamous “War on Drugs,” a forty-year-old effort aimed at curtailing “illicit drug consumption and transactions in America.”1 Although the goal behind the policy—a reduction in the rate of substance abuse—may be altruistic, the War on Drugs has dismally failed to achieve its goals and has exacerbated existing problems.2 Specifically, laws dealing with crack cocaine result in a “heavily disproportionate impact on black defendants”:3 in 2008 “blacks comprised 79.8 percent of those convicted for crack cocaine-related offenses,” whereas “whites comprised only 10.4 percent.”4More generally, these laws illustrate a fundamental misconception of the chief cause of drug abuse and the necessary remedial measures.5 The best solution to achieve the goals of the United States’ War on Drugs is to mimic Portugal’s and Sweden’s approach to combating drug abuse.6 Read More

Steps to Alleviating Violence Against Women on Tribal Lands

Anjum Unwala* One in three Native American women has been raped or has experienced an attempted rape.1 Federal officials also failed to prosecute 75% of the alleged sex crimes against women and children living under tribal authority.2 The Senate bill to reauthorize the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) could provide appropriate recourse for Native American women who are victims of sexual assault.3 This bill (S. 1925), introduced in 2011, would grant tribal courts the ability to prosecute non-Indians who have sexually assaulted their Native American spouses and domestic partners.4 Congress has quickly reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act twice before.5 But members of the House of Representatives now oppose a provision in S. 1925 that allows tribal courts to prosecute non-Native American criminal defendants, indicating that the battle to pass the bill will be prolonged.6 Read More

Technology Convergence and Federalism: The Case of VoIP Regulation

David A. Lyons* The Vermont Supreme Court may soon consider whether federal law permits the Public Service Board to regulate certain voice-over-internet-protocol (VoIP) services. 1 Across the Hudson, Governor Andrew Cuomo recently sought to bar the New York Public Service Commission from adopting similar regulations. 2And these states are not alone: from Maine to Florida, several states are considering whether their jurisdiction over traditional telephone service encompasses this new technology, through which nearly one-third of American landline households receive telephone service. 3 If so, nationwide VoIP providers could face up to fifty new legal regimes with which they must comply before offering service. If not, consumer migration away from traditional telephone service could leave state regulators with little to regulate. Read More

The Facebook IPO’s Face-Off with Dual Class Stock Structure

Anna S. Han* The Facebook initial public offering (“Facebook IPO”) is premised on a dual class stock structure, which the media criticizes as a circumvention of regulations designed to protect shareholders.  I argue that Facebook’s use of dual class stock not only is likely to benefit its shareholders, but also follows in the footsteps of seasoned, influential companies like Google. Read More

Argh, Matey! The Faux-Pas of the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act)

Anna S. Han* Earlier, I posted about a network neutrality case, Verizon v. FCC,1 which could have far-reaching consequences for the Internet industry. Another concerted attempt to regulate the Internet, disguised in the form of a piracy protection bill, recently came before the House Judiciary Committee and garnered widespread disapproval. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and a bipartisan group of twelve co-sponsors introduced the “Stop Online Piracy Act” (“SOPA”) on October 26, 2011, which punishes websites that are accused of facilitating copyright infringement. Although touted by its supporters as a weapon against foreign sites that steal and sell American inventions, SOPA is problematic because it also affects U.S. sites that either engage in infringement or have taken “deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability” of such infringement.2Because the bill’s lack of procedural safeguards could have deep-seated ramifications that cripple the Internet industry, it should not be reconsidered for passage. Read More

Reforming the Tax Code: A Tale of Two Purposes and Paralysis

Gene Magidenko* Though the presidential election of 2012 is still some time away, national politics have been in the thick of one for several months now. One of the top issues being debated is the tax code. 1 Most agree that the tax code should be simplified, but to say that the proposals to do this are various is an understatement. This perennial question of reform has been a fixture of the national debate for a long time, so little of what can be said about it is particularly novel. All the same, a brief overview of the purposes behind our system of taxation and how they inform the present debate about tax reform is useful. The ultimate conclusion, unsatisfying as it may be, is that there are serious systemic obstacles to any substantive changes to the tax code. Read More

Party’s Over: Admissibility of Post-Trial Juror Testimony Should Depend on the Nature of the Conduct

Justin Gillett* What do you call a weeklong period in which you and a handful of acquaintances drink alcohol every day at lunch,1 sleep though the afternoons,2 smoke marijuana3 and ingest a couple lines of cocaine on occasion?4  You call it the time when a jury convicted Anthony Tanner and William Conover of conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit various acts of mail fraud.5  Under a current rule of evidence, which precludes juror testimony to impeach a verdict except on extraneous prejudicial information, juror intoxication is not an external influence about which jurors may testify.6 A new test for the admissibility of post-trial juror testimony should be adopted so that juror testimony regarding jurors’ consumption of drugs and alcohol during breaks can be received.7 Read More