�鶹Ů��

The Supreme Court case King v. Burwell being argued March 4 is one of profound national importance. It challenges the legality of 75% of ObamaCare—the subsidies that the federal government has been paying to health insurers on behalf of enrollees in the 37 states that chose not to participate in ObamaCare. Like most conservatives, I am hopeful about the court’s decision, expected in June. (Ben Sasse, 2/25)

Could the U.S. Supreme Court allow the Affordable Care Act to survive its latest legal challenge because the plaintiffs in the case before it haven’t been injured by the law? It’s possible. The more probable result is still that the court will reach a decision on the merits of the case and eliminate the insurance subsidies necessary to make the law work in many states. But if Chief Justice John Roberts wants to avoid the criticism that the Roberts court is the most activist conservative court in history, he could plausibly use the standing argument to avoid a decision -- especially if he could get cover from the archconservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who more or less invented the constitutional doctrine of standing in a 1992 case argued successfully by -- you guessed it -- then-Deputy Solicitor General John Roberts. (Noah Feldman, 2/25)

What does a red grouper have to do with the Affordable Care Act? Maybe a lot. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday on a quirky case in which it had to decide whether the fish counted as a “tangible object” under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The decision broke down in a particularly strange way across the usual liberal-conservative lines. Reading the tea leaves -- or maybe the fish entrails -- it's possible to get some clues about how the court will interpret the ACA in the major case it will hear March 4. (Noah Feldman, 2/25)

The administration’s enrollment strategy seems inclined toward leniency—for the policy reason of trying to enroll as many individuals as possible and for the political reason of avoiding actions that could make the law more unpopular. Some advocates of a longer enrollment period have cited the ability to “diminish hostility” toward the law as one reason to allow Americans a second bite at the enrollment apple. (Chris Jacobs, 2/25)

The usual media suspects are excoriating Jeb Bush —again—for trying to help save my sister Terri Schiav o’s life. An article last month in the Tampa Bay Times, “The Audacity of Jeb Bush,” later quoted in a New Yorker article titled “The Punisher,” accused the former Florida governor of going “all in on Schiavo” and running roughshod over Florida state law. (Bobby Schindler, 2/25)

Neuroscience is appearing everywhere. And the legal system is taking notice. The past few years have seen the emergence of “neurolaw.” A spread in the NYT Magazine, a best-selling NYT book, a primetime PBS documentary, the first Law and Neuroscience casebook, and a multimillion-dollar investment from the MacArthur Foundation to fund a Research Network on Law and Neuroscience have all fueled interest in how neuroscience might revolutionize the law. The potential implications of neurolaw are broad. (Francis Shen and Dena Gromet, 2/25)

California is home to two major biotechnology hubs — San Francisco and San Diego — but Los Angeles has been left behind. The paradox is that universities in Los Angeles County produce more than 5,000 graduates in biotechnology-related fields each year, compared with 2,800 in San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont. However, it's San Francisco that attracted $1.15 billion in biotechnology investment in 2013, compared with a paltry $45 million here. No wonder, then, that so many of our graduates head north. (C.L. Max Nikias, 2/25)

The Supreme Court made the right call today by ruling against a state dental board that tried to limit competition from salons, spas and other businesses. The case pitted the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners against the Federal Trade Commission, which accused the board of violating federal antitrust law. It had been sending letters to teeth whitening businesses ordering them to stop offering the service, on the grounds that they were not licensed dentists. These letters served to reduce competition and, therefore, raise the cost of teeth whitening. (Vikas Bajaj, 2/25)