If the wide-ranging decisions that ended the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024 term on Friday have anything in common, it is their length, with some of their syllabi running to five small-print pages and more, and with a plethora of...more
6/30/2025
/ Affordable Care Act ,
Appointments Clause ,
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) ,
FCC ,
First Amendment ,
Free Speech ,
Healthcare ,
Injunctive Relief ,
Non-Delegation Doctrine ,
Preliminary Injunctions ,
SCOTUS ,
Trump v CASA
To anyone who has followed the case of United States v. Skrmetti, especially those who attended or listened to the oral argument, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 6–3 holding that a Tennessee law prohibiting certain medical...more
6/20/2025
/ Appeals ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Equal Protection ,
Healthcare ,
Judicial Review ,
Minors ,
SCOTUS ,
State Bans ,
Statutory Interpretation ,
Transgender ,
United States v Skrmetti
In its 2022 decision in Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation, for Valley Hospital Medical Center, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the phrase “entitled to [Medicare Part A] benefits” applied to “all those qualifying for the...more
Another Three-for Thursday at the Supreme Court, with none of the decisions a landmark but each of utmost relevance to legal specialists and technicians in the fields of bankruptcy, estate taxation, and Indian affairs....more
6/6/2024
/ Asbestos ,
Bankruptcy Code ,
Bankruptcy Court ,
Becerra v San Carlos Apache Tribe ,
Business Assets ,
Chapter 11 ,
Commercial Bankruptcy ,
Commercial Insurance Policies ,
Connelly v United States ,
Creditors ,
Debtors ,
Estate Tax ,
Healthcare ,
Indian Health Service (IHS) ,
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) ,
Medical Reimbursement ,
Native American Issues ,
Reorganizations ,
SCOTUS ,
Truck Insurance Exchange v Kaiser Gypsum Co Inc
Emerging from the pattern of unanimity, or near unanimity, that has characterized most of the cases decided so far this term, the Supreme Court decided one of its most eagerly awaited and controversial cases. And the outcome...more
In an unexpectedly broad ruling issued December 14, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas declared the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) as unconstitutional in its entirety. This decision, if ultimately...more
12/19/2018
/ Affordable Care Act ,
Appointments Clause ,
Benefit Plan Sponsors ,
Biosimilars ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Corporate Counsel ,
Declaratory Judgments ,
Department of Justice (DOJ) ,
Employer Group Health Plans ,
Health Care Providers ,
Health Insurance ,
Healthcare ,
Healthcare Reform ,
HRA ,
Individual Mandate ,
Internal Revenue Code (IRC) ,
Kathleen Sebelius ,
Medicaid ,
Medicaid Expansion ,
Pharmaceutical Industry ,
Popular ,
Severability Doctrine ,
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
On September 9, 2015, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) issued new guidance on individual accountability for corporate wrongdoing. In the memorandum and an accompanying speech by the Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates,...more
9/29/2015
/ Attorney-Client Privilege ,
Board of Directors ,
C-Suite Executives ,
Chief Compliance Officers ,
Corporate Misconduct ,
Criminal Prosecution ,
Department of Justice (DOJ) ,
Enforcement Actions ,
Government Investigations ,
Healthcare ,
New Guidance ,
Yates Memorandum
On August 3, 2015, in United States ex rel. Kane v. Healthfirst, Inc., et al., No. 1:11-cv-02325 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 3, 2015), the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued the first reported...more
On April 20, 2015, the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Resources (“OIG”), in collaboration with the American Health Lawyers Association, the Association of Healthcare Internal...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 February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the North Carolina Dental Board (“Board”) was not insulated from federal antitrust liability under the so-called “state action” doctrine when it engaged...more