Search for: "State v. Burwell"
Results 581 - 600
of 964
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
14 Apr 2015, 4:04 am
Burwell and states establish their own exchanges, residents of those states will in fact qualify for subsidies for health care that they purchase on the new exchanges. [read post]
12 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm
Burwell? [read post]
9 Apr 2015, 9:01 pm
In Texas v. [read post]
31 Mar 2015, 6:09 am
If, as oral argument in King v. [read post]
30 Mar 2015, 5:04 pm
Quinn and Burwell v. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 9:01 pm
Burwell. [read post]
29 Mar 2015, 9:00 pm
At the Supreme Court, the Justices decided Burwell v. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 7:21 pm
Supreme Court’s decision last year in Burwell v. [read post]
26 Mar 2015, 3:05 am
Burwell, “[t]here was not a single instance of an administration official warning that if states decided not to run their own health care exchanges, their citizens would not be eligible for the tax credit subsidies. [read post]
25 Mar 2015, 5:28 am
That's the pending case about whether there can be subsidies on the health insurance exchanges set up in the states by the federal government. [read post]
24 Mar 2015, 4:23 am
Burwell, the challenge to the availability of subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, and the challenges to state bans on same-sex marriage. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 3:07 pm
Burwell Supreme Court Oral Argument Read Transcript of King v. [read post]
22 Mar 2015, 7:34 am
Burwell, “King v. [read post]
19 Mar 2015, 8:30 am
My 2014 William Brennan lecture on NFIB v. [read post]
18 Mar 2015, 3:45 am
Burwell that subsidies don’t apply to insurance coverage from federal exchanges. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 4:35 pm
Burwell. [read post]
17 Mar 2015, 2:42 am
” At the Knowledge Center of the Council of State Governments, Lisa Soronen looks at last week’s decision in Perez v. [read post]
16 Mar 2015, 6:35 am
[Postscript: Given all the discussion of federalism questions related to King v. [read post]
13 Mar 2015, 10:47 am
On cert., the state asks (1) whether the Michigan courts’ decision not to extend United States v. [read post]
