Academic Commons

Reports

What the New Deal Settled

Greene, Jamal

This brief essay, written in conjunction with a symposium comparing the Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Obama presidencies, explores the absence of substantive due process arguments in the Affordable Care Act litigation and attendant public discourse. I argue that a substantive due process argument against the Act's individual mandate is at least as sound doctrinally as a federalism-based argument, but to the extent such arguments have been made, they have been rejected as frivolous. I suggest that this phenomenon may result in part from political obstacles to coalescing around and funding a substantive due process argument and in part from the shadow Lochner v. New York casts over arguments that may be characterized (even inaccurately) as sounding in economic due process. The ACA litigation demonstrates one way in which Lochner's anticanonicity distorts modern legal argument.

Files

More About This Work

Academic Units
Law
Series
Columbia Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, 12-307
Published Here
June 2, 2015

Notes

Version dated May 24, 2012.

Academic Commons provides global access to research and scholarship produced at Columbia University, Barnard College, Teachers College, Union Theological Seminary and Jewish Theological Seminary. Academic Commons is managed by the Columbia University Libraries.