<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>National Senior Citizens Law Center &#187; Case Analyses</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/category/federal-rights/case-analyses/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.nsclc.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Feb 2013 00:32:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>11th Cir.: Parts of Alabama anti-immigration law likely violate Constitution</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/11th-cir-parts-of-alabama-anti-immigration-law-likely-violate-constitution/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=11th-cir-parts-of-alabama-anti-immigration-law-likely-violate-constitution</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/11th-cir-parts-of-alabama-anti-immigration-law-likely-violate-constitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Nov 2011 23:37:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Analyses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4270</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Eleventh Circuit enjoined parts of Alabama&#8217;s anti-immigration law pending a full review of the merits. Though the decision did not bind the merits panel that will soon consider the law&#8217;s constitutionality, it indicates that the panel believes that at &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/11th-cir-parts-of-alabama-anti-immigration-law-likely-violate-constitution/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/11th-cir-parts-of-alabama-anti-immigration-law-likely-violate-constitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>N.D.Ind: limit on payment for dental services violates Medicaid law</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/nd-ind-limit-on-payment-for-dental-services-violates-medicaid-law/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=nd-ind-limit-on-payment-for-dental-services-violates-medicaid-law</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/nd-ind-limit-on-payment-for-dental-services-violates-medicaid-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Nov 2011 23:33:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Analyses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4267</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A district court issued a preliminary injunction against a state law that places a $1,000 annual limit on Medicaid payments for dental services.  The court concluded that both state and federal Medical laws require states to fully “cover” dental procedures &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/nd-ind-limit-on-payment-for-dental-services-violates-medicaid-law/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/nd-ind-limit-on-payment-for-dental-services-violates-medicaid-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>S.D.Tex.: rejects 11th Am. defense to ADA claim in education</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/sd-tex-rejects-11th-am-defense-to-ada-claim-in-education/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=sd-tex-rejects-11th-am-defense-to-ada-claim-in-education</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/sd-tex-rejects-11th-am-defense-to-ada-claim-in-education/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:14:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Analyses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4261</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a lawsuit against Texas A &#38; M University, a district court held that sovereign immunity did not bar a former student’s claim against the University under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court also held &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/sd-tex-rejects-11th-am-defense-to-ada-claim-in-education/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/sd-tex-rejects-11th-am-defense-to-ada-claim-in-education/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>5th Cir: Remands case re consideration of race in re-zoning for schools</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/5th-cir-remands-case-re-consideration-of-race-in-re-zoning-for-schools/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=5th-cir-remands-case-re-consideration-of-race-in-re-zoning-for-schools</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/5th-cir-remands-case-re-consideration-of-race-in-re-zoning-for-schools/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2011 23:12:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Analyses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4258</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After questioning whether the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Parents Involved required the district court to apply strict scrutiny to a school board’s decision to consider race when making a re-zoning decision, the Fifth Circuit found that there was a &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/5th-cir-remands-case-re-consideration-of-race-in-re-zoning-for-schools/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/5th-cir-remands-case-re-consideration-of-race-in-re-zoning-for-schools/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>D.D.C.: FDA&#8217;s rule re cigarette labels violates First Amendment</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/ddc-fdas-rule-re-cigarette-labels-violates-first-amendment/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=ddc-fdas-rule-re-cigarette-labels-violates-first-amendment</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/ddc-fdas-rule-re-cigarette-labels-violates-first-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Nov 2011 23:10:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Analyses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4253</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After finding that a recently-issued final rule by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) likely violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, a district court issued a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the final rule. R.J. &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/ddc-fdas-rule-re-cigarette-labels-violates-first-amendment/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/ddc-fdas-rule-re-cigarette-labels-violates-first-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>9th Cir: Younger Abstention in Challenge to Attorney Caseloads in Foster Care Cases</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/9th-cir-younger-abstention-in-challenge-to-attorney-caseloads-in-foster-care-cases/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=9th-cir-younger-abstention-in-challenge-to-attorney-caseloads-in-foster-care-cases</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/9th-cir-younger-abstention-in-challenge-to-attorney-caseloads-in-foster-care-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:29:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Analyses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4250</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a per curiam opinion, the Ninth Circuit upheld a district court’s decision to abstain from adjudicating a lawsuit brought by a group of foster children under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. E.T. v. Cantil-Sakauye, 657 F.3d 902 (9th Cir. 2011). &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/9th-cir-younger-abstention-in-challenge-to-attorney-caseloads-in-foster-care-cases/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/9th-cir-younger-abstention-in-challenge-to-attorney-caseloads-in-foster-care-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>D.C.Cir.: ACA&#8217;s individual mandate constitutional</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/d-c-cir-acas-individual-mandate-constitutional/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=d-c-cir-acas-individual-mandate-constitutional</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/d-c-cir-acas-individual-mandate-constitutional/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 21:27:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Analyses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4246</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act&#8217;s individual mandate under the Commerce Clause, rejecting the applicability of the Anti-Injunction Act. One judge dissented, arguing that the suit should be dismissed, based on the &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/d-c-cir-acas-individual-mandate-constitutional/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/d-c-cir-acas-individual-mandate-constitutional/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NSCLC Statement on DC Ct of Appeals ACA Ruling</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/nsclc-statement-on-dc-ct-of-appeals-aca-ruling/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=nsclc-statement-on-dc-ct-of-appeals-aca-ruling</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/nsclc-statement-on-dc-ct-of-appeals-aca-ruling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Nov 2011 21:25:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Analyses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4243</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled today that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional. Of particular significance in terms of its likely consideration by the Supreme Court is that Senior Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman, a well known conservative &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/nsclc-statement-on-dc-ct-of-appeals-aca-ruling/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/nsclc-statement-on-dc-ct-of-appeals-aca-ruling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>N.D.Fla.: Institutionalized plaintiffs have divergent interests from community plaintiffs, defeating class certification</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/nd-fla-institutionalized-plaintiffs-have-divergent-interests-from-community-plaintiffs-defeating-class-certification/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=nd-fla-institutionalized-plaintiffs-have-divergent-interests-from-community-plaintiffs-defeating-class-certification</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/nd-fla-institutionalized-plaintiffs-have-divergent-interests-from-community-plaintiffs-defeating-class-certification/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:23:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Analyses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4240</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In a further development in litigation challenging a lengthy waiting list for Medicaid funding for Florida’s Home and Community Based Services Waiver program, the district court for the Northern District of Florida denied a motion for class certification from a &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/nd-fla-institutionalized-plaintiffs-have-divergent-interests-from-community-plaintiffs-defeating-class-certification/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/nd-fla-institutionalized-plaintiffs-have-divergent-interests-from-community-plaintiffs-defeating-class-certification/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>M.D.N.C.: Abortion Law&#8217;s Compelled Speech Violates 1st Amendment</title>
		<link>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/mdnc-abortion-laws-compelled-speech-violates-1st-amendment/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=mdnc-abortion-laws-compelled-speech-violates-1st-amendment</link>
		<comments>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/mdnc-abortion-laws-compelled-speech-violates-1st-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Nov 2011 21:03:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>NanOak</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Case Analyses]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.nsclc.org/?p=4235</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After reviewing a provision of a North Carolina law that requires physicians or other healthcare providers to make an ultrasound image visible to a woman seeking an abortion and to describe to the patient the images seen on an ultrasound, &#8230; <a class="more-link" href="http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/mdnc-abortion-laws-compelled-speech-violates-1st-amendment/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.nsclc.org/index.php/mdnc-abortion-laws-compelled-speech-violates-1st-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>