Cultivated Compendium

Reuters reports that the U.S. Supreme Court did not take action today on a case involving what Argentina owes some bondholders after its default over a dozen years ago. "Based on the court's usual practice, Tuesday's development may mean either that the court will decline to hear the case or that it will ask the Obama administration to weigh in on whether the dispute is worth the court's attention," Reuters reported.

My prior post is here: http://www.cultivatedcompendium.com/news/argentinian-debt-default-heads-...

ALM's The Legal Times reports on en banc arguments held yesterday "in a case that could undo a terrorism conviction and reshape how the government prosecutes criminal charges against other detainees held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

Long after Argentina rebounded from its 2000-2001 financial crisis, lawsuits over its debt are still working their way through the American courts. Some cases are not yet at the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Buenos Aires Herald reports "the case that is now in the hands of the US Supreme Court is the one that relates to whether Argentina violated an equal treatment clause known as 'pari passu' because it failed to treat all creditors equally." The case is up for the justices to decide whether to grant certiorari. The Second Ciruit ruled Argentina had breached the contractual promise to treat bondholders equally, the Buenos Aires Herald reported.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports on a case that could go even farther than Citizens United in limiting campaign-finance controls in favor of free speech. The case the U.S. Supreme Court will hear this term "involves a law that puts a ceiling of $123,200 on individuals who donate to multiple federal candidates, parties and political action committees during a two-year election cycle," the Chronicle reports. Advocates of overturning the limit argue it violates free-speech rights, but opponents argue such rules better ensure fair elections by controlling the amount of money the affluent can pump into campaigns.

Now that American consumers can start shopping for private health insurance through exchanges, the Washington Post has a great explainer on how the exchanges will work. 

Some things I learned that I didn't know:

1. If folks can't find an affordable plan, they don't have to buy coverage if it's more than 8% of their income.

2. The proportion of people who won't be affected by the law is higher than I thought. Only 20% of Americans don't get insurance from employers or the government and will need to access the exchanges.

3. Smokers have to disclose their tobacco use and will be charged extra for their health insurance.

The clash over the requirement that most employers, as well as insurers for religious institutions that are not directly associated with houses of worship, cover female employees' contraception is primed for the U.S. Supreme Court, UPI reports. The Sixth and Third Circuits ruled against challenges to the insurance mandate to cover contraception, but the 10th Circuit has ruled in favor of a challenge by two private, secular companies, UPI also reported. The Solicitor General has asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari on the issue, and such requests tend to be granted by the justices, UPI also reports.

Republican lawyer Theodore Olson and Democrat lawyer David Boies, who successfully prosecuted the constitutional challenge to California's ban on same-sex marriage, have joined a case in Virginia that could be a test case in the U.S. Supreme Court to establish the rights of same-sex couples to marry anywhere in the United States, the Washington Post reports. There are many challenges proceeding in many states in the wake of the Supreme Court rulings earlier this year striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act and rejecting the standing of the petitioners seeking to keep California's ban intact. Olson and Boies like the Virginia litigation as a test case because Virginia not only bans same-sex matrimony but the recognition of same-sex unions from anywhere else, the Post also reported.

The Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 was supposed to ensure mental-health treatment and addiction-treatment services get the same coverage from insurers as physical ailments. "But five years after President George W. Bush signed the law, there is widespread agreement that it has fallen short of its goal of creating parity for mental health coverage," the New York Times reports. One of the issues is regulations to put meat on the bones of the statute have never been written by federal regulators. 

A physician-legislator opined this weekend in The Washington Post that a moratorium should be declared on rolling out electronic health records. One problem is "entry errors and inconsistencies are becoming common." Another problem is different institutions all have different systems. Another problem is doctors end up staring at computer screens, not listening to patients during visits. The columnist wants one national system.

The Record (Bergen County) reports that Friday's ruling by a trial judge that same-sex marriage violates that state's constitution is a "blessing and curse" for proponents. "While Superior Court Judge Mary Jacobson’s 53-page opinion Friday was hailed as a landmark, a 'tipping point' in the decadelong crusade, some advocates worried it could hinder their main objective — getting the Legislature to enact same-sex marriage despite Governor Christie’s opposition." Christie plans to appeal Jacobson's decision and already vetoed legislation that would have established same-sex matrimony in the state. The Democrat-controlled legislature is going to try to garner enough votes to override the gubernatorial veto, but they need Republican votes to do so. But the court case might detract from the efforts to attract Republicans to that cause, The Record reports.