Photo of Andrew T. VanEgmond

Andrew VanEgmond is a Member in Dykema's Ann Arbor office. His practice focuses on automotive class actions, antitrust, products liability, employment litigation, evictions, health care matters, and other complex litigation. His research and drafting skills are central to his Dykema teams’ briefing and client advice.

The Supreme Court heard argument in Enbridge Energy, LP v. Nessel (No. 24-783), a case that presents a deceptively narrow procedural question with potentially significant consequences for federal jurisdiction: whether the 30-day deadline for removal set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) is subject to equitable tolling. The case arises from high-profile litigation brought by the Michigan Attorney General seeking to decommission Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline, but the Court’s resolution is likely to reverberate far beyond the energy sector.Continue Reading Enbridge Energy: Can Equitable Tolling Salvage a Defendant’s Untimely Removal to Federal Court?

In Little v. Hecox, the Supreme Court is considering whether Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act violates the Equal Protection Clause by barring transgender women and girls from participating on female-designated sports teams in public schools. The case, argued alongside West Virginia v. B.P.J., places before the Court a closely watched dispute at the intersection of equal protection doctrine, sex-based classifications, and athletic regulation.Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Whether Idaho’s Ban on Transgender Participation in Women’s Sports Violates Equal Protection

On January 20, 2026, in Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, the Supreme Court unanimously held that litigants do not have unlimited time to challenge judgments as void; instead, they must file any such challenge within a “reasonable time.” The decision resolved an 11-1 circuit split, affirming the Sixth Circuit and concluding that all the other circuit courts to address this question have been improperly allowing litigants to seek to vacate void judgments with no time limit at all.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That There Is a “Reasonable Time” Limit To Challenge Void Judgments

In a significant and unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court held that reimbursement requests submitted to the E-Rate program qualify as “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA) if any portion of the funds involved originates from the U.S. Treasury. The decision in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath is poised to have far-reaching implications for entities that receive federal funds through intermediaries, heightening litigation and raising the stakes for FCA compliance.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Broadens False Claims Act Reach To E-Rate Reimbursement Requests

In June 2023, the Supreme Court issued two opinions interpreting the False Claims Act (FCA)—U.S. ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu, Inc., (June 1, 2023), U.S. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway, Inc. (June 1, 2023), and U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc. (June 16, 2023).In the Supervalu/Safeway decision, which was an important victory for relators, the Court reinforced that the focus is on the subjective knowledge of a defendant for the scienter component of the FCA. In Polansky, the Court, in a ruling beneficial to defendants, held that the Government may dismiss an FCA action when it intervenes, even after the unsealing of the FCA complaint. Each decision also contains discussion about the scope of the FCA, and its statutory interpretations, which will surely lead to future challenges.

Continue Reading Figuring Out the FCA: Supreme Court Issues Two Decisions

On June 17, the Supreme Court rejected another court challenge to the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), holding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge its minimum essential coverage provisions. For the third time, the Supreme Court upheld the ACA. More than a decade after the ACA was enacted, the long and winding road of ACA challenges may be over and healthcare industry participants may finally be able to rely on the ACA as settled law moving forward.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Rejects Third Challenge To Affordable Care Act