Andrei Boyarshinov, adjunct professor and associate general counsel for Shands HealthCare, engaged in a discussion with UF Law Professor Steven Willis Sept. 17 regarding the constitutionality of the health care reform act. (Photos by Marcela Suter)

Health care reform and the Constitution collided in the Supreme Court this year and President Barack Obama’s premier domestic initiative emerged largely intact. But could it be that the decision was merely a stopgap, as the conservative chief justice who sided with the court liberals to uphold the law merely bides his time until provisions of the law have taken effect?

On the occasion of Constitution Day Sept. 17, this question was debated at UF Law. On one side was UF Law Professor Steven Willis, who briefed the Supreme Court and lower courts, advising them on the unconstitutionality of the The Affordable Health Care Act. On the other was Andrei Boyarshinov (JD 07), a UF Law adjunct professor and associate general counsel for Shands HealthCare.

Students, faculty and staff gathered in the Martin H. Levin Advocacy Center Courtroom for “The Affordable Care Act: The U.S. Constitution Meets Health Care Reform.”

Boyarshinov is senior attorney for managed care and network development, commercial transactions, and risk management for UF and Shands.

Willis has been a member of the UF Law faculty for 31 years and specializes in tax law. He wrote an amicus brief for the U.S. Supreme Court on the Affordable Care Act and published three related law review articles.

Dean Robert Jerry acted as moderator, and began the discussion by summarizing the history of the Constitution and the health care debate.

“(Health care) was a topic that was discussed as early as the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt,” Jerry said.

The question posed to the speakers was whether the government could use its powers to require individuals to buy health care.

Boyarshinov presented an overview of the act, highlighting the problems with today’s health care system and how the act seeks to fix those problems.

“The U.S. spends more on health care than it does on its defense,” he said. According to Boyarshinov, the act seeks to decrease the cost of health care and simultaneously broaden health care availability through delivery system and insurance reform.

However, to effectuate the changes, individuals are required to either have insurance or pay a tax penalty.

“The glue through (the Affordable Health Act) is the individual mandate,” he said.

The act met with opposition by 26 states, but was recently declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. Although the case was a challenge of Congress’s commerce power, the Court upheld the act under taxing power.

Meanwhile, Willis’s recalled that his initial response to the ruling was dismay.

“And when that decision came down, and I read it… needless to say, I was disappointed,” Willis said.

However, upon reflection, Willis realized, “we have a truly brilliant chief justice of the Supreme Court.”

Willis used Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion to argue that the act will be challenged in 2014 on tax grounds and ultimately found unconstitutional. Willis said Roberts’ opinions lays out a “roadmap” for that result.

-Felicia Holloman (3L)
Law student writer

The ABA Tax Challenge and the national tax moot court competition exercised the advocacy abilities and tax knowledge of the competitors through complicated tax questions designed to simulate real-world business problems.

Stephanie Malen (2L) and Caitlin Foster (2L) competed in the ABA Tax Challenge in San Diego on Feb. 17. Competitors submitted a memorandum and client letter, which was evaluated by a panel of judges. The top teams were flown to San Diego to defend their submissions in person. Malen and Foster excelled to the semi-finals.

“We look forward to another strong showing next year,” said Professor Steven J. Willis, the faculty adviser for Tax Moot Court.

Meanwhile, Michael Bruno (3L), Zachary Ritz (2L) and Adam Smith (3L) teamed up for the national tax moot court competition in Clearwater on Feb. 2. The national tax moot court competition is sponsored by the Florida Bar Tax Section and featured 16 teams.

The competitors wrote a brief and presented six appellate arguments to a panel of judges. Bruno, Ritz and Smith placed second in the competition, which is one of many accolades bestowed upon the Tax Moot Court team in recent years.

“We have fielded a team four times in this competition, placing second in 2009, second in 2010, first in 2011 and second in 2012,” said Willis.

Collins Brown helped to coach this year’s team in the national tax moot court competition. The team also received financial assistance from the Florida Moot Court team and a faculty member, both contributing a total of $2,400 to defray costs.

As co-coach for the University of Florida’s 2011 Tax Moot Court team, Lewis has helped Baley (3L) prepare for the national competition since December.

And earlier this month, the three-member UF team took first prize at the competition in St. Petersburg with Baley also claiming the title of Best Individual Oralist.

But Lewis knows, perhaps better than most, just how good Baley and the rest of the UF team are — Baley and UF beat Lewis’ school, Charleston School of Law, in the 2010 competition.

“One of the reasons I hired (Lewis) was because I wanted him to help coach this team because I saw how good he was,” said Professor of Law Steven Willis, UF’s Tax Moot Court team coach.

Having only competed in the 16-team national competition for three years, UF took home its first first-prize award this year, edging out Ohio Northern University, after placing second in both 2009 and 2010.

But it hasn’t been easy, Baley said.

Baley and Willis said the team, which also included Michael Bruno (2L) and Kevin Hall (3L), had a practice schedule of about 10 to 12 hours every week, in addition to each student’s full-time class schedule.

For Baley, he knew the work had paid off when he got to argue before a three-member panel of United States Tax Court judges in the sixth and final round of this year’s competition.

“You get to sort of match wits with some pretty sophisticated and experienced judges,” Baley said. “I enjoy getting in a conversation with the three judges and seeing what we can figure out.”

And Willis, who’s coached the team for three years, isn’t bashful to mention just how impressed he is with his winning team.

“Watching the team progress over time just warms my heart,” he said. “I learn a tremendous amount as well.”

And for UF’s winning team, eyes are already set on next year’s competition.

“We’re constantly trying to improve,” Willis said. “We’re focusing on next year.”

But until then, Willis is awaiting the arrival of the competition’s trophy, a large silver bowl, in which UF’s name will soon accompany the names of the winners from the past quarter-century.

And Willis thinks UF students and faculty should see the trophy.

“I’d be lying if I said winning wasn’t my favorite part,” Willis said.

• Speaking on AG McCollum’s lawsuit challenging the recently passed Patient Protection and Care Affordability Act (April 7, 2010, WOKV Radio)
  McCollum’s suite argues Congress has overstepped it’s authority in mandating states to pay for costs involved with reform and states the tax on individual’s who don’t purchase health coverage is unconstitutional, and are in violation of the 10th amendment and the commerce clause. University of Florida law professor Joe Little said these are questions that need to be asked. “I think it is possible that there could be some portions of it that might be held to be beyond Congress’s power,” Little said that is because the law is so broad. He thinks that most will be ruled within their power. He wouldn’t predict which way the court would rule on McCollum’s specific lawsuit, only predicting is that some suit will end up in Supreme Court.
• “UF experts describe Stevens as centrist, defender of rights” (April 10, 2010, Gainesville Sun)
  UF law professors discuss how Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens will be remembered after his retirement. Joe Little, professor emeritus and constitutional law expert at UF’s Levin College of Law, said Stevens’ retirement will inevitably alter the composition of the nation’s highest court. It’s too early to predict exactly how, in Little’s view. By liberal, I mean people who care about the rights of the individual and who try to defend the individual against the state,” Little said. Even though Stevens was appointed by a Republican president, Little added, “he was what we would now call a moderate Republican … something that’s pretty much gone out of existence.” In Little’s view, Stevens’ legacy will be one of “turning away from the extreme lurch to the right on the court during the latter part of his term.” “I think President Obama will be very careful to pick someone who will not slide over into the other camp,” Little said. “It will probably be someone whose views are left of center, but not too far.” Little added, “Whoever he selects, he will want to get the appointment through.”

• “Can health care suit make headway?” (March 23, Florida News Network)
  Baldwin told the Florida News Network that the proposed lawsuit by Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum is on shaky ground when it comes to the commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution. “The only issue that the court would look at (would be to) see if the Congress has the constitutional authority to enact this legislation,” he said. “And all they would have to look at is Article I, Section 8.”