Wos v. E.M.A.

Editor's Note :

Wos v. E.M.A.

Opinion analysis: Court holds that police will generally need a warrant for sustained cellphone location information (Updated) – Amy Howe

Opinion analysis: Justices approve broad damage recovery for patent-infringing exports – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Court holds agreement to statutory severance of overlapping counts waives issue-preclusion claim after acquittal at first trial – Lissa Griffin

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

June 2018

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

June 2018

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of June 21, 2018

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
12-98	4th Cir.	Jan 8, 2013 Tr.Aud.	Mar 20, 2013	6-3	Kennedy	OT 2012

Holding: The anti-lien provision of the federal Medicaid statute pre-empts North Carolina’s irrebuttable statutory presumption that one-third of any tort recovery by a Medicaid beneficiary is attributable to medical expenses.

Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on March 20, 2013. Justice Breyer filed a concurring opinion. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas joined.

Opinion recap: Justices reject North Carolina’s lien on Medicaid claimant’s tort recoveries (Ronald Mann)
Argument recap: Justices mull state’s right to Medicaid claimant’s tort recoveries (Ronald Mann)
Argument preview: North Carolina spars with Medicaid claimant over reimbursement (Ronald Mann)
Six new grants, redistricting ruling (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders
Jun 7 2012	Application (11A1171) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 20, 2012 to July 20, 2012, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jun 14 2012	Application (11A1171) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until July 20, 2012.
Jul 20 2012	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 23, 2012)
Aug 23 2012	Brief of respondents E. M. A., a Minor, By and Through Her Guardian ad Litem, Daniel H. Johnson, et al. in opposition filed.
Sep 4 2012	Reply of petitioner Albert A. Delia, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services filed.
Sep 5 2012	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.
Sep 25 2012	Petition GRANTED.
Oct 31 2012	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Tuesday, January 8, 2013.
Nov 9 2012	Joint appendix filed. (statement of costs received)
Nov 9 2012	Brief of petitioner Albert A. Delia, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services filed.
Nov 15 2012	Record received from U.S.C.A. for 4th Circuit. (1 envelope)
Nov 16 2012	CIRCULATED.
Nov 16 2012	Brief amicus curiae of National Governors Association filed. (Distributed)
Nov 16 2012	Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 10 2012	Brief of respondents E. M. A., a Minor, By and Through Her Guardian ad Litem, Daniel H. Johnson, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 10 2012	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Dec 17 2012	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)
Dec 17 2012	Brief amicus curiae of Federation of Defense and Corporate Counsel filed. (Distributed)
Dec 17 2012	Brief amici curiae of American Association for Justice, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 17 2012	Brief amici curiae of AARP, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Dec 28 2012	Reply of petitioner Albert A. Delia, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services filed. (Distributed)
Jan 4 2013	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Jan 8 2013	Argued. For petitioner: John F. Maddrey, Solicitor General, Raleigh, N. C. For respondents: Christopher G. Browning, Jr., Raleigh, N. C.; and Ginger D. Anders, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)
Mar 20 2013	Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia and Thomas, JJ., joined.
Apr 22 2013	JUDGMENT ISSUED.
Apr 23 2013	Record returned to U.S.C.A. for 4th Circuit.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: Court holds that police will generally need a warrant for sustained cellphone location information (Updated) – Amy Howe

Opinion analysis: Justices approve broad damage recovery for patent-infringing exports – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: Court holds agreement to statutory severance of overlapping counts waives issue-preclusion claim after acquittal at first trial – Lissa Griffin
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
On Monday the Supreme Court will release orders from the June 21 conference (9:30 a.m.) and opinions in argued cases (10 a.m.).
This post will be updated on Monday to reflect any additional non-argument sessions the justices may schedule.
Major Cases
- Trump v. Hawaii
  (1) Whether the respondents’ challenge to the president’s suspension of entry of aliens abroad is justiciable; (2) whether the proclamation – which suspends entry, subject to exceptions and case-by-case waivers, of certain categories of aliens abroad from eight countries that do not share adequate information with the United States or that present other risk factors – is a lawful exercise of the president’s authority to suspend entry of aliens abroad; (3) whether the global injunction barring enforcement of the proclamation’s entry suspensions worldwide, except as to nationals of two countries and as to persons without a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States, is impermissibly overbroad; and (4) whether the proclamation violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
- South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.
  Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and National Bellas Hess Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois -- which held that a state cannot require an out-of-state seller with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales taxes on goods the seller ships to consumers in the state -- are overruled.
- Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31
  Whether Abood v. Detroit Board of Education should be overruled and public-sector “agency shop” arrangements invalidated under the First Amendment.
- Gill v. Whitford
- Carpenter v. United States
  The government’s acquisition of Timothy Carpenter’s cell-site records from his wireless carriers was a Fourth Amendment search; the government did not obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring those records.
- Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Carpenter v. United States The government’s acquisition of Timothy Carpenter’s cell-site records from his wireless carriers was a Fourth Amendment search; the government did not obtain a warrant supported by probable cause before acquiring those records.
- Currier v. Virginia Because Michael Currier consented to a severance of the multiple charges against him, his second trial and resulting conviction, following an acquittal at his first trial, did not violate the double jeopardy clause.
- Ortiz v. United States Military judge Colonel Martin Mitchell’s simultaneous service on an Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Military Commission Review violated neither 10 U. S. C. §973(b)(2)(A) nor the appointments clause of the Constitution.
- WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp. The focus of the Patent Act’s general damages provision, 35 U. S. C. §284, in a case involving infringement under Section 271(f)(2) is on the act of exporting components from the United States; therefore, WesternGeco’s award for lost profits was a permissible domestic application of Section 284, not an impermissible extraterritorial one.
- Lucia v. Securities and Exchange Commission Securities and Exchange Commission administrative law judges are “officers of the United States,” subject to the Constitution’s appointments clause.
- Pereira v. Sessions A putative notice sent to a nonpermanent resident to appear at a removal proceeding that fails to designate a specific time or place for that proceeding does not end the continuous residence period calculation necessary for possible cancellation of the individual’s removal.
- South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota and National Bellas Hess Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Illinois -- which held that a state cannot require an out-of-state seller with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales taxes on goods the seller ships to consumers in the state -- are overruled.
- Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States Employee stock options are not taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act of 1937.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Arlene's Flowers Inc. v. Washington (1) Whether the creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding ceremony is artistic expression, and, if so, whether compelling their creation violates the free speech clause; and (2) whether the compelled creation and sale of custom floral arrangements to celebrate a wedding and attendance of that wedding against one's religious beliefs violates the free exercise clause.
- Bearcomesout v. United States Whether the “separate sovereign” concept actually exists when Congress’s plenary power over Indian tribes and the general erosion of any real tribal sovereignty is amplified by the Northern Cheyenne Tribe’s constitution in such a way that the petitioner’s prosecutions in both tribal and federal court violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U. S. Constitution.
- Biestek v. Berryhill Whether a vocational expert’s testimony can constitute substantial evidence of “other work,” 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4)(v), available to an applicant for social security benefits on the basis of a disability, when the expert fails upon the applicant’s request to provide the underlying data on which that testimony is premised.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 63

Cases decided 57

Summary reversals 8

Merits cases granted to date 63

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Thomas gives commencement address

On May 12, Justice Clarence Thomas gave the commencement address at Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	63
Cases decided	57
Summary reversals	8
Merits cases granted to date	63

4
Orders
Opinions

7
Conference

11
Orders
Opinions

14
Conference
Opinions

18
Orders
Opinions

21
Conference
Opinions

25
Orders
Opinions