|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|18-1028||Fed. Cir.||Dec 10, 2019||Apr 27, 2020||8-1||Sotomayor||OT 2019|
Holding: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s now expired “Risk Corridors” statute—which set a formula for calculating payments to healthcare insurers for unexpectedly unprofitable plans during the first three years of online insurance marketplaces—created a government obligation to pay insurers the full amount of their computed losses; and the petitioners properly relied on the Tucker Act to sue for damages in the Court of Federal Claims.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-1, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on April 27, 2020. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch joined the court's opinion except for Part III-C. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Feb 04 2019||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 8, 2019)|
|Feb 21 2019||Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Moda Health Plan, Inc., et al..|
|Feb 25 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from March 8, 2019 to April 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Feb 27 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including April 8, 2019.|
|Mar 08 2019||Brief amicus curiae of America's Health Insurance Plans filed.|
|Mar 08 2019||Brief amici curiae of 18 States and the District of Columbia filed.|
|Mar 08 2019||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Insurance Commissioners filed.|
|Mar 08 2019||Brief amici curiae of Highmark Inc., et al. filed.|
|Mar 08 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.|
|Mar 08 2019||Brief amici curiae of Economists, et al. filed. VIDED|
|Mar 08 2019||Brief amicus curiae of Blue Cross Blue Shield Association filed. VIDED|
|Mar 08 2019||Brief amicus curiae of The Association for Community Affiliated Plans filed.|
|Mar 08 2019||Amicus brief of 18 States and the District of Columbia not accepted for filing. (Corrected version submitted)|
|Mar 29 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 8, 2019 to May 8, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.|
|Apr 01 2019||Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including May 8, 2019.|
|May 08 2019||Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed. VIDED.|
|May 28 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/13/2019.|
|May 28 2019||Reply of petitioners Moda Health Plan, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Jun 17 2019||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/20/2019.|
|Jun 24 2019||Petition GRANTED. The petitions for writs of certiorari in No. 18-1023 and No. 18-1038 are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.|
|Jun 24 2019||Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 18-1023. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 18-1023. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.” (July 17, 2019)|
|Sep 13 2019||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, December 10, 2019. VIDED.|
|Oct 23 2019||Record requested from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit.|
|Oct 25 2019||CIRCULATED|
|Nov 05 2019||Record from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit is electronic and located on Pacer.|
|Dec 10 2019||Argued. For petitioners: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For respondent: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.|
|Apr 27 2020||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Kavanaugh, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined as to all but Part III–C. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion. VIDED.|
|May 29 2020||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
We can announce, however, that we'll be liveblogging the release of orders from today's conference AND opinions, starting at around 9:25 @SCOTUSblog. Please join us to discuss the leak, pending opinions, and whatever other SCOTUS-related issues are on your mind. https://twitter.com/AHoweBlogger/status/1524788054434660353
#SCOTUS will release opinions from argued cases at 10 am on Monday. The Court does not announce in advance how many opinions it will release or which ones.
NEW: Next Monday will be a Supreme Court opinion day. Starting at 10 a.m. EDT, the court expects to issue one or more decisions in argued cases from the current term.
Just in: The Supreme Court denies a request to block the execution of Clarence Dixon, an Arizona man who is scheduled to be put to death today. Dixon's attorneys argued that, because of a mental illness, Dixon is not mentally fit to be executed under the Eighth Amendment.
On this date in “How Appealing” history: At this very moment twenty years ago, this blog came into existence, boosting your humble author from nearly total obscurity to perhaps a modicum less than nearly total obscurity.
On this happy occasion, I once https://howappealing.abovethelaw.com/2022/05/06/#179553
How the unprecedented Supreme Court leak may have been a response to an earlier disclosure about the justices' private deliberations. @TomGoldsteinSB on what it all means for the court and its secrets.
How the leak might have happened - SCOTUSblog
Among the debates generated by the leak of Justice Samuel Alito’s opinion in Dobbs is whether the leaker was...
JUST IN: The Supreme Court confirms the authenticity of the draft opinion revealed last night by Politico. The chief justice has ordered an investigation into the leak.