Spending Programs and the New Roberts Court

Описание: This is an in-person event for students only. Anyone else can attend virtually by registering. CLE credit available for virtual attendance.

The Supreme Court is poised to place new limits on Congress’s spending power at the urging of states vying for regulatory dominance. Most federal and state programs addressing health and social welfare heavily rely on the federal spending power, and three recent Supreme Court decisions--Health and Hospital Corporation v. Talevski, Medina v. Planned Parenthood, and Moyle v. U.S.—are the tip of the iceberg. Four theories are arising throughout these cases, testing the breadth of the spending power and private enforcement of spending programs. If state advocates are successful (Medina indicates they have gained traction already), then shifts in the scope, interpretation, and enforcement of longstanding social programs may occur. Yet, states may not achieve their expected outcomes. If it becomes harder to exercise the spending power with state partners, Congress may act without them, or abandon the programs altogether, depending on the political environment and other factors. State advocates may experience a short-term political gain by limiting federal authority over spending programs, but, long-term, states have needed federal money to balance their budgets, especially during economic downturns. Also, federal spending power has long been used to protect civil rights, so new limits may contribute to retrenchment.