Supreme Court

Subscribe to Supreme Court via RSS

On June 18, 2025, in a decision with multiple concurrences and dissents, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Tennessee’s SB1, which prohibits the provision of gender-affirming care to minors, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. United States v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477, 605 U.S. ___ (June 18, 2025). This decision will have broad implications for gender-affirming care throughout the United States, given the Supreme Court’s holding that SB1 classifies based on age and medical condition, rather than sex, resulting in the Court’s application of rational basis review instead of heightened scrutiny.Continue Reading Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Ban on Gender-Affirming Care for Minors

Are the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act an unconstitutional delegation of authority to private citizens? One federal court, accepting an invitation from a Supreme Court dissent, ruled the answer is yes.

In an opinion issued yesterday dismissing a False Claims Act case, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled that the statute’s provisions that permit a private citizen to bring a claim for a violation of the False Claims Act in the absence of intervention by the Federal Government are an unconstitutional delegation of executive authority that violated the Appointments Clause of Article II of the Constitution.

According to the court, the qui tam provisions, as strengthened by the False Claims Act Amendments Act of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-562), established a mechanism whereby “unaccountable, unsworn, private actors” are permitted “to exercise core executive power with substantial consequences to members of the public.” The court ruled that such a provision was unconstitutional as it permitted a private citizen to stand in as the “avatar in litigation” in which the interest of the United States is in issue.Continue Reading Are False Claims Act Whistleblower Cases Unconstitutional?

The fallout from last week’s Loper Bright/Relentless opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court that prospectively eliminated Chevron deference is still not fully clear, but Reed Smith has put together a Chevron Deference Resource Center where we will gather perspectives and events to help guide industry stakeholders through the new post-Chevron world.

The…

This post was co-authored by Megan E. McWaters, a Reed Smith summer associate.

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit which had placed doubt on the continuing efforts by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate the dispensing of mifepristone, one of the drugs used in a medication abortion.

The decision, written by Justice Kavanaugh, held that the doctors and associations who initially brought the challenge in the Northern District of Texas did not have sufficient standing to bring their claims before a federal court. The doctors involved in the suit do not prescribe or dispense mifepristone, and according to Justice Kavanaugh, nor would they be forced to provide even emergency abortion care to patients as a result of the FDA’s approval of the drug.Continue Reading Supreme Court Decision Leaves FDA Approval of Mifepristone Untouched, But For How Long?

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in the two consolidated cases challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of mifepristone. Throughout the questioning, the Justices focused on both the standing of the plaintiffs to bring the cases and on the suitability of the remedy sought.

The Court is expected to rule on the case in late June or early July. Although the Court has a 6-3 majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents, the questioning by the justices and the areas that they focused on seemed to indicate that any judicially-imposed limitations on both the FDA’s approval of the drug and the FDA’s current restrictions on the dispensing of mifepristone may be narrow.

At different times during the argument, both liberal and conservative Justices mixed together in the thrust of their questions in a way that could result in this case being a close decision with many different opinions or even resulting in a majority decision that would allow continued dispensation of the drug due to standing considerations.Continue Reading SCOTUS Arguments on Mifepristone Cases Focus on Standing and Remedy

Supreme Court review of Rule 9(b)’s application in False Claims Act cases may finally be coming whether the Executive Branch likes it or not.

In January, the Supreme Court, which is considering a certiorari petition in Johnson v. Bethany Hospice and Palliative Care, LLC, asked the Solicitor General to weigh in on whether the Court should accept the case. The case presents the question of what Rule 9(b) requires in cases arising under the False Claims Act, which is an important threshold question in many False Claims Act cases resulting in significant motions practice.

As past Solicitors General have done before her, the current Solicitor General’s brief filed late on May 24 argued that the Supreme Court should not grant plenary review because there really isn’t a meaningful circuit split on the issue. The brief also argues that the case is not a good vehicle for Supreme Court review because the district court dismissed the relator’s case on the alternative ground that the relator had not adequately pleaded violations of the federal anti-kickback statute, an issue the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit did not reach on appeal.Continue Reading SCOTUS Review of Rule 9(b) in False Claims Act cases may be on the way

UPDATE 1/20/22:

At the request of the state of Texas, the federal court has dismissed that state’s challenge to the Omnibus Covid-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination Rule. As a result, facilities within that state will now be subject to the requirements of the Rule. The CMS has set the following deadlines for compliance within the state:

Phase 1: As of February 22, 2022, all covered individuals must have either completed the initial dose of a primary series of vaccine or applied for an exemption for religious or health reasons.

Phase 2: As of March 21, 2022, all covered individuals must have either completed the primary series of vaccine or been approved for an exemption for religious or health reasons. The employee need not have passed through the two-week post-vaccination period that generally defines complete vaccination; they need only have received their complete series of vaccines.

The CMS Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination Interim Final Rule survived its initial trip to the U.S. Supreme Court on January 13 with a per curiam decision that stayed injunctions placed on the rule by federal district courts in December.

The Supreme Court took the rare action of holding oral argument and then issuing a full opinion (with dissents) on the emergency stay application that had been brought by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, asking the Court to allow the agency to enforce the rule while challenges to its validity continue in the lower federal courts.

The Court was definitive that the rule as published falls within the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services to promulgate based on the statutory authority conferred by Congress through the Social Security Act (SSA). Specifically, the court found that the various statutory provisions within the SSA allow the Secretary to impose conditions of participation on the receipt of Medicare and Medicaid funds that are necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who furnish services reimbursable under those programs and the federal program beneficiaries that they serve.

However, the Court’s opinion still leaves some questions unanswered about whether the rule will be enforceable in Texas and whether eventually some facilities may be exempted.Continue Reading CMS health care staff vaccination rule enforceable as challenges continue UPDATED

A final rule published by the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR) and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) significantly scales back nondiscrimination regulations first released in 2016. The final rule, which was published in the Federal Register on June 19, 2020, implements Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and pares back numerous nondiscrimination regulations applicable to covered health care entities in an effort to reduce regulatory costs and eliminate duplicative legal obligations.

In doing so, the final rule drastically changes the interpretation of  Section 1557’s scope, waters down stringent requirements designed to promote universal access to covered programs and providers, and alters enforcement provisions. Despite these notable changes, certain core nondiscrimination provisions remain, such as communication and access standards for disabled and limited English proficiency (LEP) individuals. As a result, covered entities will need to understand how their obligations under the final rule change, what remains the same, and what to look out for moving forward when it becomes effective on August 18, 2020. Below are the new rule’s main takeaways.Continue Reading Office for Civil Rights issues final rule scaling back nondiscrimination requirements for health care covered entities as Supreme Court broadens discrimination protections