• CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS

Held, The Court decided to save a statute Congress did not write. It changed the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to be supposedly non-coercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act made available. Court regarded its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. However, it was not and amounted instead of a vast judicial overreaching. It created a debilitated, inoperable version of healthcare regulation that the Congress did not enact and the public did not expect. Further the Court's disposition, invented and atextual as it was did not even have the merit of avoiding constitutional difficulties created them. The holding that Individual mandate was a tax raised a difficult constitutional question that the Court resolved with inadequate deliberation. Judgment on medicaid expansion ushered in new federalism concerns and placed an unaccustomed strain upon Union. Those States that declined the Medicaid expansion must subsidize vast grants to the States that accepted Medicaid expansion. Hence, Court found that the Act was invalid in its entirety.

• BANKRUPTCY LAWS

Interpretaion of § 362(h) of Bankrutpcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 - Whether § 362(h) of Bankrutpcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 terminates the automatic stay on all personal property of the estate pledged to secure a scheduled debt or only terminates the stay on personal property specifically identified in a debtors schedules as securing the debt

Held, In the present case, the Appellant Trustee suggested that the failure to adopt his interpretation of § 362(h) would permit debtors and secured creditors to collude to deprive unsecured creditors of valuable assets. However, the Court disagreed , but even if it were so, there were remedies for such conduct. If a debtor fraudulently completed her schedules, a trustee or creditor may seek to deny her a discharge under § 727(a)(4). Furthermore, if a debtor and a creditor colluded to mischaracterize a claim or collateral, they might be subject to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 152. Accordingly, it was concluded that the plain language of § 362(h) and § 521(a)(2) did not lead to an absurd result. Under the unambiguous language of § 362(h), all personal property secured by a scheduled debt was released from the automatic stay if a debtor fails to timely file and comply with her statement of intention.