This week we highlight petitions pending before the Supreme Court that address, among other things, the meaning of the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” in District of Columbia v. Heller when determining whether a felon is entitled to lodge an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of a felon disarmament law, whether a state law regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the proper standard of review for a lower court’s determination that a required party is dispensable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, and the effect of the commerce clause on a state’s ability to protect consumer access to prescription drugs by regulating the pricing of those drugs.

The petitions of the week are:

18-528

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit erred when it applied an “abuse of discretion” standard of review to a district court’s determination that a required party is dispensable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, and, if so, which standard of review is applicable to a lower court’s determination that a required party is dispensable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19.

18-540

Issue: Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit erred in holding that Arkansas’ statute regulating pharmacy benefit managers’ drug-reimbursement rates, which is similar to laws enacted by a substantial majority of states, is pre-empted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, in contravention of the Supreme Court’s precedent that ERISA does not pre-empt rate regulation.

18-546

Issue: Whether the commerce clause prohibits a state from protecting consumer access to essential off-patent and generic prescription drugs by requiring manufacturers to refrain from unconscionably raising the price of those drugs sold in the state.

18-496
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is counsel to the petitioner in this case. This listing occurs without regard to the likelihood that certiorari will be granted.

Issues: In determining whether a felon is entitled to lodge an as-applied challenge to the constitutionality of a felon disarmament law such as 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), (1) what does the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” in District of Columbia v. Heller mean; and (2) what does it mean that “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons” are “presumptively lawful regulatory measures” under Heller.

Posted in Michaels v. Whitaker, Kifle v. Ahmed, Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, Frosh v. Association for Accessible Medicines, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Aurora Barnes, Petitions of the week, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 20, 2018, 4:15 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/11/petitions-of-the-week-19/