Ken Starr on HHS Mandate Litigation

Unfortunately, former Solicitor General (and current Baylor University president) Ken Starr gets a couple of things wrong in his otherwise commendable NRO essay today on the HHS mandate litigation:

1. Embracing the myth of judicial supremacy, Starr writes:

In a constitutional republic, the Supreme Court is indeed supreme when it comes to saying what the Constitution means. That much has been clear since 1803, when Chief Justice John Marshall spoke for a unanimous Court in the iconic case of Marbury v. Madison

But, as I have explained repeatedly, it wasn’t until 1958 that the Court first proclaimed its supposed supremacy. Further:

Properly understood, Marbury stands at most for the limited proposition that the courts, in exercising their judicial function, may review the constitutionality of statutes that they are asked to apply. As leading liberal scholar Laurence Tribe has acknowledgedMarbury in no way establishes that the federal judiciary in general—or the Supreme Court in particular—is supreme over the President and Congress in determining what the Constitution means: “presidents have never taken so wholly juricentric … a view of the constitutional universe—a view that certainly isn’t implied by the power of judicial review as recognized in Marbury v. Madison.”

(I’m also far less convinced than Starr is that the Court’s 1997 decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, which held that the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not constitutionally apply against the states, is correct.)

2. With respect to the HHS mandate litigation, Starr wrongly thinks that the Department of Justice is arguing that for-profit corporations aren’t “persons” within the meaning of RFRA (and that the case “may well turn on this very technical debate”). But DOJ doesn’t in fact make that argument. It instead contends that for-profit corporations aren’t persons capable of the “exercise of religion.” DOJ’s contention is wrong (as I’ve spelled out), but it’s very different from the Dictionary Act argument that Starr imagines might be central. 

Most Popular


The Gun-Control Debate Could Break America

Last night, the nation witnessed what looked a lot like an extended version of the famous “two minutes hate” from George Orwell’s novel 1984. During a CNN town hall on gun control, a furious crowd of Americans jeered at two conservatives, Marco Rubio and Dana Loesch, who stood in defense of the Second ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Obstruction Confusions

In his Lawfare critique of one of my several columns about the purported obstruction case against President Trump, Gabriel Schoenfeld loses me — as I suspect he will lose others — when he says of himself, “I do not think I am Trump-deranged.” Gabe graciously expresses fondness for me, and the feeling is ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Students’ Anti-Gun Views

Are children innocents or are they leaders? Are teenagers fully autonomous decision-makers, or are they lumps of mental clay, still being molded by unfolding brain development? The Left seems to have a particularly hard time deciding these days. Take, for example, the high-school students from Parkland, ... Read More
PC Culture

Kill Chic

We live in a society in which gratuitous violence is the trademark of video games, movies, and popular music. Kill this, shoot that in repugnant detail becomes a race to the visual and spoken bottom. We have gone from Sam Peckinpah’s realistic portrayal of violent death to a gory ritual of metal ripping ... Read More