AGG Talks: Background Screening - What is FCRA Preemption, and Why Should You Care?
Policy debates normally focus on substance. Is climate change real? How can business entities weigh environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors into their decision-making? ...more
Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc., No. 20-1641: This case concerns the interpretation of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act’s (MSPA) anti-discrimination provisions regarding individuals with...more
Since California first legalized medical marijuana in 1996, approximately thirty-two other states and the District of Columbia have followed its lead and approved marijuana use for medical purposes. Introduction [1] - ...more
On July 9, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635, holding that President Donald Trump was required to respond to a state subpoena of his tax returns and other financial information because “Article...more
On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in the following cases: Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635: Whether as part of a district attorney’s criminal investigation targeting the President of...more
In Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (which you can read more about here), the Supreme Court held that 42 USC § 262(l)(9)(C) sets forth the exclusive federal remedy for failing to provide a copy of the biosimilar application to the...more
On April 18, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Coventry Health Care of Missouri, Inc. v. Nevils, No. 16-149, holding that: 1) under the FEHBA (specifically, 5 U.S.C. § 8902(m)(1)), the provisions of a...more
Coventry Health Care of Missouri, Inc. v. Nevils, No. 16-149: The Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”) is authorized under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959 (“FEHBA”), 5 U.S.C. §8901 et seq., to contract...more
In an opinion unanimous in judgment (albeit with two concurring opinions), the U.S. Supreme Court recently reiterated the reach of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) jurisdiction over interstate wholesale...more
On April 19, 2016, for the second time in three months, the Supreme Court of the United States reaffirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) over the formation of wholesale rates in...more
The Problem: Supply and Demand Geographic Mismatch Because much of America’s renewable energy supply is inland and demand is on the coasts (about 52% of the U.S. population is coastal), demand cannot meet supply without...more
The Supreme Court once again showed that, when it comes to the antitrust laws, the consumer is king. In Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, the Court was asked to decide where state antitrust laws end and federal regulation begins. The...more
On March 31, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., holding that Medicaid providers cannot sue to enforce reimbursement standards set forth in federal Medicaid law....more
On March 31, 2015, a 5-4 plurality of the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Medicaid providers do not have a private right of action under the Medicaid statute to challenge reimbursement rates. The Supreme Court’s...more
On March 31, 2015, the Supreme Court issued the first of several expected decisions that will impact the healthcare industry this year, ruling that Medicaid providers have no constitutional or statutory right to challenge a...more
In Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., Case No. 14-15, issued March 31, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a group of private health care providers could not sue officials in Idaho’s Department of...more
The Supreme Court ruled, on March 31, in a 5-4 decision, that hospitals and all other providers cannot sue to force a state to pay higher Medicaid rates. The name of the case is Armstrong v. Exception Child Center. In...more
Yesterday, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that denies providers the right to challenge low Medicaid reimbursement rates by suing state agencies in federal court. In Armstrong v. Exceptional Child...more
The Idaho Medicaid program scored a victory in the United States Supreme Court today, and did it by persuading normally liberal Justice Breyer to enter the conservative tent reliably inhabited by Justices Scalia, Thomas,...more
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a significant Medicaid-preemption case from the Ninth Circuit, Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Armstrong. In that case, Medicaid-participating...more
The Supreme Court recently held that federal law pre-empts state law that attempts to reallocate proceeds accruing to the designated beneficiary of a federal life insurance policy. Hillman v. Maretta, 133 S. Ct. 1943 (2013)...more