|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.|
NEW: The Supreme Court rules against the FTC in a dispute with a payday loan company over the extent of the FTC's authority to seek monetary restitution from companies engaged in deceptive practices. SCOTUS says 9-0 that FTC doesn't have that authority under the statute at issue.
NEW: The Supreme Court sides against the federal government and in favor of people who brought Social Security claims in a technical ruling about "exhaustion" rules (essentially, when in the bureaucratic process the claimants were required to raise certain legal arguments).
BREAKING: In 6-3 decision, SCOTUS declines to further limit the ability of states to sentence juveniles to life without parole. The court upholds the sentence of a Mississippi man who killed his grandfather when he was 15; says sentencing procedure did not violate 8th Amendment.
Supreme Court opinions in 15 minutes!
We’re LIVE right now discussing which opinions we could see today and answering your questions. Join us!
Announcement of opinions for Thursday, April 22 - SCOTUSblog
We will be live blogging on Thursday, April 22, as the court releases one or more opinions in argued cases. Th...
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.