Search the News Archive

Text of Amicus Brief of the United States in Supreme Court HMO External Review Case (PDF)

38 pages. Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, No. 00-1021.  The U.S. argues that the Illinois law mandating external review of HMO denials is saved from preemption because it is a law that regulates insurance, under ERISA's insurance savings clause.

Text of Amicus Brief of the States of Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Nebraska, South Carolina and West Virginia to Supreme Court in King v. Burwell (PDF)

"Congress drafted the ACA like it does most other cooperative federalism legislation -- with a variety of incentives offered to States willing to assume the burden of implementing the federal program.... Congress's conditioning of the tax credits came as no surprise to the States.... [T]he plain text of Section 36B plainly described the incentive, and other sections of the Act plainly describe the consequences of declining to accept the incentives ... In promulgating its rule, the IRS ignored the longstanding presumption -- legislatively established by Congress in the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 ... that health insurance regulation is a matter of traditional state control. Because that is so, to regulate in this area Congress must specifically and unambiguously state its intent to do so.... Absent such a 'clear statement,' a Court must adopt a reading of the challenged statute that leads to the least amount of federal incursion." [King v. Burwell, No. 14-1158 (4th Cir. July 22, 2014; cert. pet. granted Nov. 7, 2014)]

Supreme Court Opinion Dissolving Injunctions Prohibiting Enforcement of CMS Vaccine Mandate for Healthcare Workers (PDF)

23 pages. "[We] agree with the Government that the Secretary's rule falls within the authorities that Congress has conferred upon him.... The Secretary of [HHS] determined that a COVID-19 vaccine mandate will substantially reduce the likelihood that healthcare workers will contract the virus and transmit it to their patients.... He accordingly concluded that a vaccine mandate is 'necessary to promote and protect patient health and safety' in the face of the ongoing pandemic.... The rule thus fits neatly within the language of the statute.... "We accordingly conclude that the Secretary did not exceed his statutory authority in requiring that, in order to remain eligible for Medicare and Medicaid dollars, the facilities covered by the interim rule must ensure that their employees be vaccinated against COVID-19.... "The District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri's November 29, 2021, order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government's appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the disposition of the Government's petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court. "The District Court for the Western District of Louisiana's November 30, 2021, order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the Government's appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the disposition of the Government's petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. Should the petition for a writ of certiorari be denied, this order shall terminate automatically. In the event the petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court." [Biden v. Missouri; Becerra v. Louisiana, Nos. 21A240 and 21A241 (S. Ct. Jan. 13, 2022; per curium; Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and Barrett dissent)]  

Text of Supreme Court Opinion: Group Health Plan's Limits on Coverage for Outpatient Dialysis Does Not Violate the Medicare Secondary Payer Statute (PDF)

12 pages. "The question in this case is whether a group health plan that provides limited benefits for outpatient dialysis -- but does so uniformly for all plan participants -- violates the Medicare Secondary Payer statute. We agree with petitioner Marietta and the United States as amicus curiae that the answer is no. We therefore reverse the judgment of the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion." [Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. Da Vita Inc., No, 20-1641 (S. Ct. Jun. 21, 2022)]

Text of Supreme Court Per Curiam Opinion Remanding Religious Non-Profit Contraceptive Cases (PDF)

"Following oral argument, the Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties addressing 'whether contraceptive coverage could be provided to petitioners' employees, through petitioners' insurance companies, without any such notice from petitioners.' Both petitioners and the Government now confirm that such an option is feasible.... In light of the positions asserted by the parties in their supplemental briefs, the Court vacates the judgments below and remands to the respective United States Courts of Appeals ... Given the gravity of the dispute and the substantial clarification and refinement in the positions of the parties, the parties on remand should be afforded an opportunity to arrive at an approach going forward that accommodates petitioners' religious exercise while at the same time ensuring that women covered by petitioners' health plans 'receive full and equal health coverage, including contraceptive coverage.' ... Although there may still be areas of disagreement between the parties on issues of implementation, the importance of those areas of potential concern is uncertain, as is the necessity of this Court's involvement at this point to resolve them." [Zubik v. Burwell, No. 14-1418 (S. Ct. May 16, 2016)]

Supreme Court Opinion on Civil-Service Pension Payments Based on Employment as a Dual-Status Military Technician and the Social Security Windfall Provision (PDF)

12 pages. "Retirees receive Social Security benefits based on a progressive formula that awards a percentage of average past earnings.... The formula originally did not account for earnings from jobs exempt from Social Security taxes, many of which provide separate pensions. In response to this potential windfall, Congress modified the formula to reduce benefits when a retiree receives such a separate pension payment. But Congress left benefits unchanged if the pension payment was 'based wholly on service as a member of a uniformed service.' ... The National Guard of the United States is defined as a uniformed service, Section 410(m), so whether the uniformed-services exception applies depends on whether Babcock's technician work was service 'as' a member of the National Guard. It was not." [Babcock v. Kijakasi, No. 20-480 (S. Ct. Jan. 13, 2022)]

United States v. Cleveland Indians Baseball Co.

Supreme Court opinion, handed down April 17, 2001. Excerpt: Back wages are subject to FICA and FUTA taxes by reference to the year the wages are in fact paid.

Tenth Circuit Decision on Regulating PBMs Remains in Place as Oklahoma Appeals to U.S. Supreme Court

"A decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which found that several provisions of an Oklahoma law regulating pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) were preempted by federal law, will remain in place for now after a panel denied Oklahoma's motion to stay the mandate ... [A] stay would have allowed Oklahoma to enforce the challenged provisions while it pursues review by the Supreme Court of the United States[.]" [PCMA v. Mulready, No. 22-6074 (10th Cir. Aug. 15, 2023; pet. for en banc hearing denied Dec. 12, 2023; motion to stay denied Jan. 2, 2024)]

Text of Per Curiam Supreme Court Opinion Finding Harris v. Amgen Complaint Did Not Allege Sufficient Facts and Allegations to State Claim for Fiduciary Breach

[Opinion begins on page 9 of the linked document.] "The Court now holds that the Ninth Circuit failed to properly evaluate the complaint.... The Ninth Circuit ... failed to assess whether the complaint in its current form 'has plausibly alleged' that a prudent fiduciary in the same position 'could not have concluded' that the alternative action 'would do more harm than good.' ... The Ninth Circuit's proposition that removing the Amgen Common Stock Fund from the list of investment options was an alternative action that could plausibly have satisfied Fifth Third's standards may be true. If so, the facts and allegations supporting that proposition should appear in the stockholders' complaint. Having examined the complaint, the Court has not found sufficient facts and allegations to state a claim for breach of the duty of prudence." [Amgen Inc. v. Harris, No. 15-278 (U.S. Jan. 25, 2016; per curiam)]

Transcript of Supreme Court Oral Argument in Pre-Emption Challenge to State Regulation of PBMs (PDF)

80 pages, audio also available. Justice Gorsuch, to the attorney for the State of Arkansas [referencing Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Ins. Co.]: "[If] reporting relates to health plans, why wouldn't the payment for drugs? That would seem to be one of the central functions of a healthcare plan." ... Justice Kagan, to the U.S. attorney, appearing as amicus curiae: "[O]ne of the main drivers of ERISA's preemption provision was a concern about uniformity. And, here, we have 45 different states that have passed all kinds of laws with respect to these PBMs. And I'm wondering why that doesn't raise exactly the specter that the drafters of ERISA were concerned about, where the PBMs ... are trying to do 45 different things in 45 different states ... in a way that really does affect plan administration." [Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Mgmt. Assoc., Nos. 17-1609 and 17-1629 (8th Cir. Jun. 8, 2018; oral arg. Oct. 6, 2020)]