第三集:加州诉德州

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW American Journal of Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2021-12-01 DOI:10.1017/amj.2022.6
J. Watson
{"title":"第三集:加州诉德州","authors":"J. Watson","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Episode III:California v. Texas—On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their long-awaited decision on California v. Texas, “the third installment in the epic trilogy” of cases challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).1 In a 7-to-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the Court found that both the individual plaintiffs and the states lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate.2","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"47 1","pages":"507 - 512"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Episode III: California v. Texas\",\"authors\":\"J. Watson\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/amj.2022.6\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Episode III:California v. Texas—On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their long-awaited decision on California v. Texas, “the third installment in the epic trilogy” of cases challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).1 In a 7-to-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the Court found that both the individual plaintiffs and the states lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate.2\",\"PeriodicalId\":7680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Law & Medicine\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"507 - 512\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Law & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.6\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

第三集:加利福尼亚州诉德克萨斯州——2021年6月21日,美国最高法院就加利福尼亚州诉得克萨斯州一案发布了他们期待已久的裁决,这是挑战《患者保护和平价医疗法案》(“ACA”)的“史诗三部曲中的第三部”,法院认定,原告个人和各州都没有资格质疑所谓的个人授权的合宪性。2
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Episode III: California v. Texas
Episode III:California v. Texas—On June 21, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their long-awaited decision on California v. Texas, “the third installment in the epic trilogy” of cases challenging the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).1 In a 7-to-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the Court found that both the individual plaintiffs and the states lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the so-called individual mandate.2
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: desde Enero 2004 Último Numero: Octubre 2008 AJLM will solicit blind comments from expert peer reviewers, including faculty members of our editorial board, as well as from other preeminent health law and public policy academics and professionals from across the country and around the world.
期刊最新文献
A Protected Class, An Unprotected Condition, and A Biomarker - A Method/Formula for Increased Diversity in Clinical Trials for the African American Subject with Benign Ethnic Neutropenia (BEN) - CORRIGENDUM. "The Timeless Explosion of Fantasy's Dream": How State Courts Have Ignored the Supreme Court's Decision in Panetti v. Quarterman - ERRATUM. Mental Health Matters: A Look At Abortion Law Post-Dobbs - ERRATUM. Abortion Access for Women in Custody in the Wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. How The "Great Resignation" and COVID Unemployment Have Eroded the Employer Sponsored Insurance Model and Access to Healthcare.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1