What Next for the ACA after Texas v. U.S.? What the Industry Needs to Know While the Case Is on Appeal

by King & Spalding

United States District Court Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling on Friday, December 14, 2018, declaring the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) unconstitutional in its entirety.  Judge O’Connor declared the ACA’s individual mandate unconstitutional because of recent federal tax reform, which reduced to zero “shared responsibility payments” that unexempt individuals were required to pay if they chose not to be insured.  Judge O’Connor held that by reducing the shared responsibility payments to zero beginning January 1, 2019, Congress effectively repealed the individual mandate itself since it carried no penalty.  The ruling further reasoned that because the individual mandate could not be severed from the rest of the ACA, the ACA in its entirety is invalid.  Supporters of the ACA have already expressed an intent to immediately appeal Judge O’Connor’s decision, which will leave the ACA in place for the immediate future.  Indeed, Judge O’Connor did not enjoin any provisions of the ACA and the Trump administration announced shortly after the opinion was issued that the ACA would remain the law of the land while appeals are pending.  However, the ruling initiates a period of uncertainty throughout the U.S. healthcare system.  This Client Alert summarizes Judge O’Connor’s reasoning and the major implications of his ruling.


The ACA established a mandate that individuals maintain minimum health insurance coverage (commonly known as the “individual mandate”) and a shared responsibility payment imposed on non-exempt individuals who chose not to obey this mandate.  The mandate was principally designed to incentivize the purchase of health insurance by relatively healthy individuals, who typically chose not to do so, in order to expand and improve the risk pool of the individual insurance marketplace to absorb the entry of typically sicker and more costly patients that had been priced out of or denied coverage.  The enactment of the ACA brought about multiple court challenges to its constitutionality.  The first challenge was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012 when the Court upheld the ACA’s constitutionality in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius (NFIB).  Chief Justice Roberts authored the majority’s opinion that while the individual mandate is not sustainable under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the shared responsibility payment acted as a tax and, in conjunction with the individual mandate, was therefore a valid exercise of Congress’s Tax Power.  The ACA included dozens of other provisions affecting nearly every corner of the healthcare industry, including Medicaid expansion, establishment of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, numerous Medicare payment and regulatory reforms, and various public health initiatives, that are not affected by the individual mandate or necessarily funded by shared responsibility payments.

However, earlier this year an alliance of 19 Republican state attorneys general and the governor of Maine, led by the Texas Attorney General, initiated legal proceedings in the Northern District of Texas against the United States and, led by the Attorney General of California, 17 other state attorneys general as intervenor defendants.  Plaintiffs sought, among other things, a declaration that the individual mandate was rendered unconstitutional as a result of tax reform enacted by last year’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA).  Plaintiffs further argued that the individual mandate was an essential provision inseverable from the rest of the ACA, and therefore the ACA in its entirety must be declared unconstitutional.  

In June, the U.S. Department of Justice informed Judge O’Connor that it would not defend the ACA in its entirety.  DOJ stated that it disagreed with the plaintiffs that every provision of the ACA should be struck down, arguing instead that only two provisions sufficiently related to the individual mandate required invalidation: the guaranteed-issue provision, which prohibits insurers from denying coverage or charging higher rates for individuals with pre-existing conditions, and the community-rating provision, which limits insurers from charging consumers premiums that differ based on age or gender.  In its briefs, DOJ argued that only these two provisions are inseverable because the individual mandate is necessary to prevent adverse selection and to broaden the health insurance pool to include healthy individuals, which will in turn lower premiums that otherwise would spike if only more costly individuals entered the marketplace.  DOJ argued that all other provisions of the ACA should remain in effect, and asked Judge O’Connor to delay issuing any decision until after the conclusion of the 2019 open enrollment period.

Judge O’Connor’s Decision

Judge O’Connor agreed with the plaintiffs.  Though the plaintiffs initially sought a preliminary injunction until resolution of the pending action, Judge O’Connor issued a summary judgment ruling in favor of the plaintiffs but denied their request for an injunction.  In his 55-page opinion, Judge O’Connor first held that since the TCJA effectively eliminated the shared responsibility payment, the individual mandate no longer triggers a tax but now serves as a standalone command, unrelated to any tax, that continues to be impermissible under the Interstate Commerce Clause (as decided in NFIB) and is therefore unconstitutional.  Judge O’Connor reasoned that the individual mandate was buoyed by Congress’s Tax Power only because it triggered a provision that produced at least some revenue through the shared responsibility payment.  When the TCJA effectively eliminated that revenue potential, he ruled, the individual mandate no longer triggers a tax and is unconstitutional.

The intervenor defendants (i.e., the California-led coalition) argued that the individual mandate can still be fairly read as a tax because it continues to satisfy the tax factors discussed by the Supreme Court in NFIB, including that previous shared responsibility payments will make their way into the treasury for years to come. They contended that, due to the frequency of late payments and deferrals, the government will continue to receive revenue from 2018 until 2020 or beyond.  The intervenor defendants also pointed to other examples of Congress delaying or suspending taxes, such as the medical device tax, to argue that the shared responsibility payment has not been rendered unconstitutional merely because it will be $0 in 2019.  Indeed, Congress could not repeal the individual mandate outright through the TCJA because doing so would have run afoul of Senate budget reconciliation rules.  Congress only had the ability to adjust the shared responsibility payment rate, and a future Congress could again decide to raise it to its original level without having to re-enact it altogether.

Judge O’Connor was not persuaded by the arguments of the intervenor defendants.  He found that because the TCJA eliminated the shared responsibility payment, the provision no longer produces revenue for the government, regardless of when the revenue is actually paid.  He further found that suspending or delaying a tax is not equivalent to eliminating it and the TCJA does not merely suspend collection of the shared responsibility payment.

Judge O’Connor also agreed with the plaintiffs on their claim regarding the inseverability of the individual mandate from the rest of the ACA.  The intervenor defendants argued that certain provisions of the ACA, including the guaranteed-issue and community-rating provisions, were clearly severable from and unrelated to the individual mandate.  However, Judge O’Connor found that the individual mandate was essential to the ACA’s architecture and Congress intended it to place the ACA’s myriad parts in perfect tension.  He stated:

Yet the parties focus on particular provisions.  It is like watching a slow game of Jenga, with each party poking at a different provision to see if the ACA falls.  Meanwhile, Congress was explicit: the Individual Mandate is essential to the ACA, and that essentiality requires the mandate to work together with the Act’s other provisions.

Though many expected Judge O’Connor, a conservative judge appointed by former President George W. Bush, to rule against the law at least in part, the breadth and timing of Judge O’Connor’s ruling caught many by surprise. 

What Does the Ruling Hold for Healthcare Providers?

Shortly after the ruling was issued, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders released a statement on behalf of the White House stating, “We expect this ruling will be appealed to the Supreme Court.  Pending the appeal process, the law remains in place.”  Similarly, a notice now appears on www.healthcare.gov which reads, “Court’s decision does not affect this season’s open enrollment.”  Individuals were able to sign up for healthcare coverage through the ACA’s marketplace until the December 15, 2018, deadline.  Judge O’Connor’s ruling came one day before the close of the enrollment period and enrollment reports due this week will give some insight as to whether the ruling cooled enrollment.

In the meantime, the ruling throws all of the ACA’s reforms to both the insurance marketplace and government healthcare programs into flux.  While these provisions will remain in effect during appeals, the potential breadth of the decision is profound.  These include:

  • Reductions in Insurance Coverage for Patients. These coverage options include the subsidized purchase of insurance through the individual exchanges, Medicaid expansion, the employer mandate, and mandatory coverage for individuals under the age of 26 on their parents’ plans.  The full extent of these consequences will be affected by the actions of other parties.  For example, while the ACA’s provision for enhanced federal matching to support Medicaid expansion would fall, many states would likely continue to cover those populations even with reduced matching payments while other states may end their expansions altogether.
  • Repeal of the 60-Day Overpayment Rule. While the federal False Claims Act and related amendments and rulemakings would remain valid, the 60-day overpayment rule was enacted as a provision of the ACA.  However, Congress could enact subsequent legislation – or CMS could potentially do so through rulemaking – to reinstate the 60-day overpayment rule. 
  • The End of Hospital Price Transparency? The ACA requires hospitals to “make public” a list of their “standard charge” for items and services.  CMS has been particularly active in implementing this provision in the last year, recently stating in subregulatory guidance that hospitals must post their entire chargemaster for every item and service they offer.  Hospitals have long argued that this directive is procedurally invalid and substantively at odds with the literal wording of the ACA.  The provision remains in effect while the ACA is good law, but it is unclear if CMS has separate authority to require price transparency of this nature should Judge O’Connor’s decision be upheld.
  • Reductions in Prescription Drug Rebates Required Under the Medicaid Program. The ACA increased the percentages of rebates paid by pharmaceutical manufactures, leading to lower state and federal Medicaid costs.  If these rebates were to reset to pre-ACA levels, many states may have additional incentive to pare back or eliminate Medicaid expansion.
  • Reversing the 75-Percent Cut in Medicare Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) Payments and the Uncompensated Care (UCC) Payment Program. This is perhaps the biggest source of redistribution of funds from hospitals to help support extended coverage through exchanges and other government funded programs.  Medicare and Medicaid DSH subsidize the costs of caring for uninsured people.  With creation of the exchanges and Medicaid expansion, arguably less money is needed to cover the costs of the uninsured.  Uninsured payments under the ACA moved from an uncapped amount of funds (“empirical DSH”) to a system that distributes funds from a limited pool based on the national uninsured rate and each hospital’s cost of providing uncompensated care.  While the UCC payment system would be repealed, it is very likely that Congress would reenact a similar provision that subsidizes hospitals based on their actual costs of care (which is currently measured by statistics on Worksheet S-10 of the Medicare cost report).  In short, repeal of the ACA would not likely mean an extended reversion to the old Medicare DSH program.  Republicans in Congress have proposed using S-10 statistics for other purposes (e.g., participation in the 340B Drug Pricing Program), so hospitals must continue to complete and monitor their S-10 submissions.
  • Abolition of CMMI and the Medicare Shared Savings Programs (MSSP). The ACA gave CMS additional demonstration authority as well as money to fund the use of that authority.  CMS has used this to develop the MSSP and Accountable Care Organization programs, as well as other demonstration projects.  Initially, it would be difficult for CMS to continue these programs without that authority and funding.  However, CMS does have other demonstration authority that is more limited in scope but does allow the agency to experiment with new payment models.  It is possible that CMS would continue to pursue these projects with this alternative authority.  Private payors that have adopted similar models may also continue to implement them independent of what CMS ultimately decides.
  • Restoration of Market Basket Decrease and Productivity Adjustments. Judge O’Connor references $200 billion in cuts to hospitals to help pay for other provisions of the ACA. Much of this comes in mandatory downward adjustments to percentage increases in yearly inpatient payment rates due to application of a productivity adjustment in addition to other mandatory cuts.   The productivity adjustment would be removed which, in theory, would lead to a higher inpatient rate in future years.  However, it is possible that a future Congress would prospectively reenact these rate adjustments because of the significant Medicare cost increase that would result from removing them. 

In addition, Judge O’Connor’s decision, if upheld, would wipe out Section 501(r) of the Internal Revenue Code, which was added by the ACA to establish strict standards that nonprofit hospitals must satisfy in exchange for tax-exempt, charitable status.  Currently, nonprofit hospitals are required to conduct community health needs assessments at least once every three years to determine the unmet health needs of the hospital’s community and adopt an implementation strategy to outline how the hospital will address those needs; adopt and implement a financial assistance policy and emergency medical care policy; limit the amount that the hospital charges for emergency and other medically necessary care to those patients who qualify for financial assistance; and refrain from taking extraordinary collection actions, such as garnishing wages, until after the hospital has used reasonable efforts to determine whether an individual qualifies for financial assistance.  Though section 501(r) may be vulnerable as a technical matter, nonprofit hospitals should not expect these requirements to vanish entirely even if Judge O’Connor’s ruling is upheld.  These provisions enjoy broad bipartisan support and would likely be included in subsequent legislation.

Possible Outcomes on Appeal

The next phase of this litigation is an appeal by the California-led coalition of intervenor defendants to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  While impossible to predict, the Fifth Circuit could affirm or reverse Judge O’Connor entirely or agree with DOJ and invalidate only those provisions more central to survival of the individual mandate.

If the plaintiffs are successful again at the Fifth Circuit, the intervenor defendants will seek review by the Supreme Court.  The Court likely will take the case, given the importance of the issues and the fact that the Court often reviews lower court rulings when major legislation is struck down.  However, if the intervenor defendants prevail in the Fifth Circuit, it may be more difficult for plaintiffs to convince the Court to weigh in as there would likely not be any split in the circuits and the Fifth Circuit’s decision will be upholding the law.  Framing of the arguments before the Fifth Circuit, the judges appointed to the panel, and whether the panel issues separate opinions, all will be critical in the next stage of litigation.  (Indeed, two of President Trump’s appointments to the Fifth Circuit were former attorneys at the Texas Solicitor General’s Office, the office that managed the litigation before Judge O’Connor.) 

Legislative Responses?

As soon as the new Congress convenes in January, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives is expected to intervene in the case.   Current House Democratic Leader and incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), has promised “the House of Representatives will move swiftly to formally intervene in the appeals process” to uphold the ACA.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is also urging a vote to intervene in the case, though it is unlikely to take place under a Republican-controlled Senate. 

Some in Washington, including President Trump and outgoing House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-OR), contend that the decision offers an opportunity for bipartisan compromise.  However, it is not clear that consensus extends beyond the widespread agreement on protecting individuals with pre-existing conditions.  Republicans will be resistant to take steps they perceive as further enshrining the ACA, and Democrats will resist efforts they perceive as undermining the law. 

For instance, incoming Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley (R-IA) promised his constituents they will not lose health coverage while the courts settle this issue and noted his committee will hold hearings on “a better way” to provide health coverage, as the ACA is “fatally flawed.”  (Chairman Grassley is also among the biggest supporters of the limitations placed on nonprofit hospitals by section 501(r).)  Some Republicans have been working on legislation to restore parts of the ACA in the event the plaintiffs were successful.  Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) sponsored the “Ensuring Coverage for Patients with Pre-Existing Conditions Act,” to require insurers to sell plans to individuals regardless of whether they have pre-existing conditions.  However, the legislation would not require the insurer to cover treatments for a particular condition and would allow premiums to vary by age and gender. 

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) has been a leader among Republicans in working on various efforts to stabilize the insurance market, and his announcement that he will not seek reelection in 2020 may provide him additional flexibility in negotiating a bipartisan agreement.  In March 2018, Senators Alexander and Susan Collins (R-ME), along with Representatives Walden and Ryan Costello (R-PA), attempted to add the Bipartisan Health Care Stabilization Act of 2018 (BHCSA) to an appropriations bill.  However, the effort failed after Democrats insisted the legislation be exempted from the “Hyde amendment,” which prohibits federal funding from being used for abortions.  The BHCSA would have provided $30 billion for reinsurance or invisible high-risk pools in the nongroup insurance market, appropriated funds for cost-sharing reductions through 2021, and retained funding for ACA outreach and enrollment.  The BHCSA incorporated elements of two bipartisan proposals developed by Senators Alexander and Patty Murray (D-WA) to appropriate CSR payments and by Senators Collins and Bill Nelson (D-FL) to provide funding for state reinsurance programs. 

Incoming House Democratic committee leaders have promised to protect key provisions of the ACA and may begin with their March 2018 legislation, the “Undo Sabotage and Expand Affordability of Health Insurance Act of 2018,” which would reverse a number of regulatory actions of the Trump administration, restore funding for ACA, and establish a national reinsurance program to help stabilize the market.  Senate Democrats have not introduced companion legislation, but they have pursued targeted efforts to overturn Trump administration regulations that undermine the ACA.  In October 2018, Democrats fell one vote short of a 51-vote majority to overturn an administration final rule on short-term, limited-duration health insurance plans.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© King & Spalding | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

King & Spalding

King & Spalding on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide

JD Supra Privacy Policy

Updated: May 25, 2018:

JD Supra is a legal publishing service that connects experts and their content with broader audiences of professionals, journalists and associations.

This Privacy Policy describes how JD Supra, LLC ("JD Supra" or "we," "us," or "our") collects, uses and shares personal data collected from visitors to our website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") who view only publicly-available content as well as subscribers to our services (such as our email digests or author tools)(our "Services"). By using our Website and registering for one of our Services, you are agreeing to the terms of this Privacy Policy.

Please note that if you subscribe to one of our Services, you can make choices about how we collect, use and share your information through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard (available if you are logged into your JD Supra account).

Collection of Information

Registration Information. When you register with JD Supra for our Website and Services, either as an author or as a subscriber, you will be asked to provide identifying information to create your JD Supra account ("Registration Data"), such as your:

  • Email
  • First Name
  • Last Name
  • Company Name
  • Company Industry
  • Title
  • Country

Other Information: We also collect other information you may voluntarily provide. This may include content you provide for publication. We may also receive your communications with others through our Website and Services (such as contacting an author through our Website) or communications directly with us (such as through email, feedback or other forms or social media). If you are a subscribed user, we will also collect your user preferences, such as the types of articles you would like to read.

Information from third parties (such as, from your employer or LinkedIn): We may also receive information about you from third party sources. For example, your employer may provide your information to us, such as in connection with an article submitted by your employer for publication. If you choose to use LinkedIn to subscribe to our Website and Services, we also collect information related to your LinkedIn account and profile.

Your interactions with our Website and Services: As is true of most websites, we gather certain information automatically. This information includes IP addresses, browser type, Internet service provider (ISP), referring/exit pages, operating system, date/time stamp and clickstream data. We use this information to analyze trends, to administer the Website and our Services, to improve the content and performance of our Website and Services, and to track users' movements around the site. We may also link this automatically-collected data to personal information, for example, to inform authors about who has read their articles. Some of this data is collected through information sent by your web browser. We also use cookies and other tracking technologies to collect this information. To learn more about cookies and other tracking technologies that JD Supra may use on our Website and Services please see our "Cookies Guide" page.

How do we use this information?

We use the information and data we collect principally in order to provide our Website and Services. More specifically, we may use your personal information to:

  • Operate our Website and Services and publish content;
  • Distribute content to you in accordance with your preferences as well as to provide other notifications to you (for example, updates about our policies and terms);
  • Measure readership and usage of the Website and Services;
  • Communicate with you regarding your questions and requests;
  • Authenticate users and to provide for the safety and security of our Website and Services;
  • Conduct research and similar activities to improve our Website and Services; and
  • Comply with our legal and regulatory responsibilities and to enforce our rights.

How is your information shared?

  • Content and other public information (such as an author profile) is shared on our Website and Services, including via email digests and social media feeds, and is accessible to the general public.
  • If you choose to use our Website and Services to communicate directly with a company or individual, such communication may be shared accordingly.
  • Readership information is provided to publishing law firms and authors of content to give them insight into their readership and to help them to improve their content.
  • Our Website may offer you the opportunity to share information through our Website, such as through Facebook's "Like" or Twitter's "Tweet" button. We offer this functionality to help generate interest in our Website and content and to permit you to recommend content to your contacts. You should be aware that sharing through such functionality may result in information being collected by the applicable social media network and possibly being made publicly available (for example, through a search engine). Any such information collection would be subject to such third party social media network's privacy policy.
  • Your information may also be shared to parties who support our business, such as professional advisors as well as web-hosting providers, analytics providers and other information technology providers.
  • Any court, governmental authority, law enforcement agency or other third party where we believe disclosure is necessary to comply with a legal or regulatory obligation, or otherwise to protect our rights, the rights of any third party or individuals' personal safety, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security or safety issues.
  • To our affiliated entities and in connection with the sale, assignment or other transfer of our company or our business.

How We Protect Your Information

JD Supra takes reasonable and appropriate precautions to insure that user information is protected from loss, misuse and unauthorized access, disclosure, alteration and destruction. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. You should keep in mind that no Internet transmission is ever 100% secure or error-free. Where you use log-in credentials (usernames, passwords) on our Website, please remember that it is your responsibility to safeguard them. If you believe that your log-in credentials have been compromised, please contact us at privacy@jdsupra.com.

Children's Information

Our Website and Services are not directed at children under the age of 16 and we do not knowingly collect personal information from children under the age of 16 through our Website and/or Services. If you have reason to believe that a child under the age of 16 has provided personal information to us, please contact us, and we will endeavor to delete that information from our databases.

Links to Other Websites

Our Website and Services may contain links to other websites. The operators of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using our Website or Services and click a link to another site, you will leave our Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We are not responsible for the data collection and use practices of such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of our Website and Services and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Information for EU and Swiss Residents

JD Supra's principal place of business is in the United States. By subscribing to our website, you expressly consent to your information being processed in the United States.

  • Our Legal Basis for Processing: Generally, we rely on our legitimate interests in order to process your personal information. For example, we rely on this legal ground if we use your personal information to manage your Registration Data and administer our relationship with you; to deliver our Website and Services; understand and improve our Website and Services; report reader analytics to our authors; to personalize your experience on our Website and Services; and where necessary to protect or defend our or another's rights or property, or to detect, prevent, or otherwise address fraud, security, safety or privacy issues. Please see Article 6(1)(f) of the E.U. General Data Protection Regulation ("GDPR") In addition, there may be other situations where other grounds for processing may exist, such as where processing is a result of legal requirements (GDPR Article 6(1)(c)) or for reasons of public interest (GDPR Article 6(1)(e)). Please see the "Your Rights" section of this Privacy Policy immediately below for more information about how you may request that we limit or refrain from processing your personal information.
  • Your Rights
    • Right of Access/Portability: You can ask to review details about the information we hold about you and how that information has been used and disclosed. Note that we may request to verify your identification before fulfilling your request. You can also request that your personal information is provided to you in a commonly used electronic format so that you can share it with other organizations.
    • Right to Correct Information: You may ask that we make corrections to any information we hold, if you believe such correction to be necessary.
    • Right to Restrict Our Processing or Erasure of Information: You also have the right in certain circumstances to ask us to restrict processing of your personal information or to erase your personal information. Where you have consented to our use of your personal information, you can withdraw your consent at any time.

You can make a request to exercise any of these rights by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

You can also manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard.

We will make all practical efforts to respect your wishes. There may be times, however, where we are not able to fulfill your request, for example, if applicable law prohibits our compliance. Please note that JD Supra does not use "automatic decision making" or "profiling" as those terms are defined in the GDPR.

  • Timeframe for retaining your personal information: We will retain your personal information in a form that identifies you only for as long as it serves the purpose(s) for which it was initially collected as stated in this Privacy Policy, or subsequently authorized. We may continue processing your personal information for longer periods, but only for the time and to the extent such processing reasonably serves the purposes of archiving in the public interest, journalism, literature and art, scientific or historical research and statistical analysis, and subject to the protection of this Privacy Policy. For example, if you are an author, your personal information may continue to be published in connection with your article indefinitely. When we have no ongoing legitimate business need to process your personal information, we will either delete or anonymize it, or, if this is not possible (for example, because your personal information has been stored in backup archives), then we will securely store your personal information and isolate it from any further processing until deletion is possible.
  • Onward Transfer to Third Parties: As noted in the "How We Share Your Data" Section above, JD Supra may share your information with third parties. When JD Supra discloses your personal information to third parties, we have ensured that such third parties have either certified under the EU-U.S. or Swiss Privacy Shield Framework and will process all personal data received from EU member states/Switzerland in reliance on the applicable Privacy Shield Framework or that they have been subjected to strict contractual provisions in their contract with us to guarantee an adequate level of data protection for your data.

California Privacy Rights

Pursuant to Section 1798.83 of the California Civil Code, our customers who are California residents have the right to request certain information regarding our disclosure of personal information to third parties for their direct marketing purposes.

You can make a request for this information by emailing us at privacy@jdsupra.com or by writing to us at:

Privacy Officer
JD Supra, LLC
10 Liberty Ship Way, Suite 300
Sausalito, California 94965

Some browsers have incorporated a Do Not Track (DNT) feature. These features, when turned on, send a signal that you prefer that the website you are visiting not collect and use data regarding your online searching and browsing activities. As there is not yet a common understanding on how to interpret the DNT signal, we currently do not respond to DNT signals on our site.

Access/Correct/Update/Delete Personal Information

For non-EU/Swiss residents, if you would like to know what personal information we have about you, you can send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com. We will be in contact with you (by mail or otherwise) to verify your identity and provide you the information you request. We will respond within 30 days to your request for access to your personal information. In some cases, we may not be able to remove your personal information, in which case we will let you know if we are unable to do so and why. If you would like to correct or update your personal information, you can manage your profile and subscriptions through our Privacy Center under the "My Account" dashboard. If you would like to delete your account or remove your information from our Website and Services, send an e-mail to privacy@jdsupra.com.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Privacy Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our Privacy Policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use our Website and Services following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, the practices of this site, your dealings with our Website or Services, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

JD Supra Cookie Guide

As with many websites, JD Supra's website (located at www.jdsupra.com) (our "Website") and our services (such as our email article digests)(our "Services") use a standard technology called a "cookie" and other similar technologies (such as, pixels and web beacons), which are small data files that are transferred to your computer when you use our Website and Services. These technologies automatically identify your browser whenever you interact with our Website and Services.

How We Use Cookies and Other Tracking Technologies

We use cookies and other tracking technologies to:

  1. Improve the user experience on our Website and Services;
  2. Store the authorization token that users receive when they login to the private areas of our Website. This token is specific to a user's login session and requires a valid username and password to obtain. It is required to access the user's profile information, subscriptions, and analytics;
  3. Track anonymous site usage; and
  4. Permit connectivity with social media networks to permit content sharing.

There are different types of cookies and other technologies used our Website, notably:

  • "Session cookies" - These cookies only last as long as your online session, and disappear from your computer or device when you close your browser (like Internet Explorer, Google Chrome or Safari).
  • "Persistent cookies" - These cookies stay on your computer or device after your browser has been closed and last for a time specified in the cookie. We use persistent cookies when we need to know who you are for more than one browsing session. For example, we use them to remember your preferences for the next time you visit.
  • "Web Beacons/Pixels" - Some of our web pages and emails may also contain small electronic images known as web beacons, clear GIFs or single-pixel GIFs. These images are placed on a web page or email and typically work in conjunction with cookies to collect data. We use these images to identify our users and user behavior, such as counting the number of users who have visited a web page or acted upon one of our email digests.

JD Supra Cookies. We place our own cookies on your computer to track certain information about you while you are using our Website and Services. For example, we place a session cookie on your computer each time you visit our Website. We use these cookies to allow you to log-in to your subscriber account. In addition, through these cookies we are able to collect information about how you use the Website, including what browser you may be using, your IP address, and the URL address you came from upon visiting our Website and the URL you next visit (even if those URLs are not on our Website). We also utilize email web beacons to monitor whether our emails are being delivered and read. We also use these tools to help deliver reader analytics to our authors to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

Analytics/Performance Cookies. JD Supra also uses the following analytic tools to help us analyze the performance of our Website and Services as well as how visitors use our Website and Services:

  • HubSpot - For more information about HubSpot cookies, please visit legal.hubspot.com/privacy-policy.
  • New Relic - For more information on New Relic cookies, please visit www.newrelic.com/privacy.
  • Google Analytics - For more information on Google Analytics cookies, visit www.google.com/policies. To opt-out of being tracked by Google Analytics across all websites visit http://tools.google.com/dlpage/gaoptout. This will allow you to download and install a Google Analytics cookie-free web browser.

Facebook, Twitter and other Social Network Cookies. Our content pages allow you to share content appearing on our Website and Services to your social media accounts through the "Like," "Tweet," or similar buttons displayed on such pages. To accomplish this Service, we embed code that such third party social networks provide and that we do not control. These buttons know that you are logged in to your social network account and therefore such social networks could also know that you are viewing the JD Supra Website.

Controlling and Deleting Cookies

If you would like to change how a browser uses cookies, including blocking or deleting cookies from the JD Supra Website and Services you can do so by changing the settings in your web browser. To control cookies, most browsers allow you to either accept or reject all cookies, only accept certain types of cookies, or prompt you every time a site wishes to save a cookie. It's also easy to delete cookies that are already saved on your device by a browser.

The processes for controlling and deleting cookies vary depending on which browser you use. To find out how to do so with a particular browser, you can use your browser's "Help" function or alternatively, you can visit http://www.aboutcookies.org which explains, step-by-step, how to control and delete cookies in most browsers.

Updates to This Policy

We may update this cookie policy and our Privacy Policy from time-to-time, particularly as technology changes. You can always check this page for the latest version. We may also notify you of changes to our privacy policy by email.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please contact us at: privacy@jdsupra.com.

- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.