Is the So-Called Mandate Without Any Tax Consequences Unconstitutional? And If So, How Should a Court Remedy That? Part Three in a Series Examining Underexplored Issues in the California v. Texas Affordable Care Act Case

VIKRAM DAVID AMAR, EVAN CAMINKER, JASON MAZZONE

In this third of a series of columns examining underexplored issues in the California v. Texas case challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Illinois law dean Vikram David Amar, Michigan Law dean emeritus Evan Caminker, and Illinois law professor Jason Mazzone consider whether the so-called individual mandate of the ACA, now without any tax consequences, is unconstitutional, as the challengers argue. The authors explain why, in their view, the challengers are incorrect, regardless of whether the word “shall” in the ACA is interpreted as obligatory or not.

Read More

State v. Wolfe

Citation: 2020 MT 260

Opinion Date: October 13, 2020

Judge: Mike McGrath

Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Defendant's motion to suppress testimony regarding statements he made during a phone conversation with the victim, holding that the testimony was not subject to exclusion. A.O. and her friend Tricia alleged that Defendant had committed sexual offenses against A.O. While A.O. was at the police department, Defendant called A.O. Police officers listened in on the conversation, during which Defendant admitted to raping A.O. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence. The district court ruled that the officer testimony regarding the conversation would be excluded but that A.O. and Tricia, as private actors, could testify as to the conversation. Defendant appealed, arguing that the testimony of A.O. and Tricia as to the contents of the conversation must be excluded as attributable to an unconstitutional privacy intrusion by a government actor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly denied the motion to suppress because A.O. and Tricia's testimony resulted from their own private actions, not from unconstitutional monitoring and recording by police.

Kramer v. Fergus Farm Mutual Insurance Co.

Citation: 2020 MT 258

Opinion Date: October 13, 2020

Judge: James A. Rice

Areas of Law: Class Action, Contracts, Insurance Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court granting class certification in this action alleging breach of contract and violation of Montana's Unfair Trade Practices Act (UTPA), Mont. Code Ann. 33-18-101 et seq., holding that a sufficient factual basis was established to justify certification of the classes. Plaintiffs filed this action against Fergus Farm Mutual Insurance Company (FFM), alleging that FFM breached its insurance contract with Plaintiffs and all other insureds by failing to include general contractor overhead and profit in the cost to repair or replace Plaintiffs' property. The district court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion by determining that common questions of law predominate the litigation and support certification of the class; but (2) certain conclusions reached by the district court were a "bridge too far" at this stage of litigation.

State v. Cole

Citation: 2020 MT 259

Opinion Date: October 13, 2020

Judge: Gustafson

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court ordering Defendant to pay $31,903 in restitution for losses resulting from offenses committed by another, holding that the district court erred in ordering Defendant to pay restitution. Defendant pled guilty to criminal possession of dangerous drugs and criminal possession of drug paraphernalia. At sentencing, the parties disagreed as to restitution for costs associated with remediating a co-defendant's apartment from methamphetamine contamination. The district court imposed the restitution requested by the State. On appeal, Defendant argued that the court erred in requiring him to pay restitution for losses committed by another absent evidence of criminal accountability or a causal connection between his offense and those losses. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that the State failed to establish a causal link between Defendant's admitted possession of methamphetamine and the rehabilitation claimed.