New investigation reveals true cost of certificate of need laws to patients

Certificate-of-need laws result in higher health care costs, reduced access to important medical services, and worse patient outcomes, according to a new report from Americans for Prosperity Foundation. In Virginia, South Carolina, Michigan, and Iowa, the four states in which the effects of CON restrictions are covered in Permission to care: How certificate of need laws harm patients and stifle…

Read More

A new report shows how little-understood laws are hurting patients

Thirty-five states and the District of Columbia have laws on the books that make quality, affordable health care more difficult to access. These restrictions, called certificate-of-need laws, prevent hospitals and other providers from making necessary investments in their services, equipment, and facilities without government permission. While CON laws are intended to ensure that providers don’t…

Read More

Cheerleading, social media, and free speech: What the Supreme Court’s decision in Mahanoy School District v. B.L. means for students’ First Amendment rights

One of the biggest student free speech cases in the last half century started with a high school cheerleader and a profanity-laced Snapchat. The implications of that terse, ephemeral message extend well beyond the original hundred-plus friends with whom the freshman student shared her post. In a decision today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 8-1…

Read More

Supreme Court unanimously rules FTC must comply with the law

Today, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer that the Federal Trade Commission must comply with the law and end its ultra vires pursuit of money damages. The opinion presents a straightforward statutory interpretation of the scope of FTC enforcement power under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which allows…

Read More

Narrow question in Supreme Court campus speech case has broad First Amendment implications

The Supreme Court hears oral argument today in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, addressing whether “a government’s post-filing change of an unconstitutional policy moots nominal-damages claims that vindicate the government’s past, completed violation of a plaintiff’s constitutional right.” Translation? The justices are deciding whether people whose rights have been violated should have their day in court even…

Read More