Decision Alert

Subscribe to Decision Alert via RSS

On April 29, in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court held in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy (No. 23-715) that the “Medicare fraction” of the Medicare program includes only those patients who were eligible to receive supplementary social income (SSI) payments during the month of their hospitalization, as opposed to patients who were merely enrolled in the SSI system at the time of their hospitalization.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Medicare DSH Reimbursement—Key Implications for Hospitals in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy

In the closely watched case, City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) does not authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to condition compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits on the quality of the receiving waters. The ruling is expected to significantly impact wastewater treatment facilities nationwide by narrowing the scope of EPA enforcement authority.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Narrows EPA Authority Under Clean Water Act in 5-4 Decision

On April 2, 2025, in a significant decision in FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision denying marketing authorization for certain e-cigarette products. The Court held that the FDA’s decision was not “arbitrary and capricious,” finding it consistent with the agency’s pre-decisional guidance and statutory mandate.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Upholds FDA Denial of E-Cigarette Products

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

On January 15, 2025, in Royal Canin v. Wullschleger, the Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff amends a complaint to eliminate federal law claims—leaving only state law claims—federal courts lose jurisdiction over the remaining claims and must remand the case to state court (if the case was removed) or dismiss the case (if originally filed in federal court).   Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That Federal Courts Lose Jurisdiction Over State Law Claims After Plaintiff Purges Federal Law Claims

On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of civil litigation: the preponderance of the evidence standard remains the default unless explicitly altered by statute or constitutional mandate. In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the Court clarified this standard for exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), resolving a dispute over the appropriate burden of proof for employers claiming such exemptions.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Confirms Standard of Proof for FLSA Exemptions

On January 17, 2025, in the coordinated cases of TikTok v. Garland (No. 24-656) and Firebaugh v. Garland (No. 24-657), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. This bipartisan law bans TikTok in the United States if TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, does not sell the popular web-based video-sharing platform to a non-Chinese owner. In an unsigned opinion, the Court rejected TikTok’s First Amendment challenge to the new divest-or-be-banned law and ruled that it was justified by the threat of China’s collecting sensitive data from TikTok’s U.S. users to influence U.S. public opinion by manipulating their personalized video feeds. Concurring only in the outcome reached by the Court, Justice Gorsuch wrote separately to observe that the cases had moved through the Supreme Court very quickly and that he did not have “the kind of certainty I would like to have about the arguments and record before us. All I can say is that, at this time and under these constraints, the problem appears real and the response to it not unconstitutional.”Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Upholds Conditional TikTok Ban, But TikTok Persists