The budget reconciliation bill passed the House of Representatives by a one-vote margin, 215 to 214, and soon will be considered by Senate committees. The day before the House vote, the Rules Committee...
State regulations on housing discrimination protect individuals even when they are not otherwise included under federal law. Explore this U.S. 50 state, District of Columbia, and U.S. territories law survey...
Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a future consideration—it’s a core component of how businesses operate today. From automating workflows to powering proprietary tools, AI is reshaping...
This checklist covers the applicability of artificial intelligence (AI) in areas critical to life sciences and healthcare companies, including data privacy, intellectual property, and research and development...
Do you need to understand key labor and employment considerations for companies and their legal counsel navigating mergers and acquisitions and other business transactions? Review our recently published...
* The views expressed in externally authored materials linked or published on this site do not necessarily reflect the views of LexisNexis Legal & Professional.
In a 7-2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that plaintiffs in California v. Texas did not suffer an “injury” and thus lacked standing necessary to bring a case asserting that the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional, once Congress eliminated the individual mandate penalty. Plaintiffs consisted of two individuals, plus nearly two dozen states led by Texas. The result: The Affordable Care Act, enacted 11 years ago, survives its third Supreme Court review. See California v. Texas, 2021 U.S. LEXIS 3119 (June 17, 2021).
READ MORE
Related Content
Practical Guidance Updates
Featuring the latest updates from your Practical Guidance account.
Experience results today with practical guidance, legal research, and data-driven insights—all in one place.Experience Lexis+