President Obama’s Affordable Care Act has survived yet another challenge in the federal courts. In a resounding 8-1 decision this Monday, April 27, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that health insurance companies who suffered losses entering the new marketplaces established by the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) were entitled to compensation for those losses.
U.S. Supreme Court
State Liquor Law Tossed: Industry Changes Ahead
By Kelly Landers Hawthorne on
In a decision with major implications for fans of wine, liquor, or free trade, the Supreme Court has affirmed a ruling that struck down a Tennessee law, which imposed certain residency requirements to operate retail liquor stores, as impermissibly violating the Commerce Clause. Tennessee Wine and Spirits Retailers Assn. v. Thomas. Justice Alito, writing for the majority in the 7-to-2 decision, said that the 21st Amendment, which ended Prohibition in 1933, did not authorize states to discriminate against new residents. Because the law “blatantly favors the state’s residents and has little relationship to public health and safety,” the opinion explains, “it is unconstitutional.”
“License and [Copyright] Registration Please”: Key Takeaways from the Supreme Court’s Opinion Clarifying When a Copyright Claimant Can Sue for Infringement
By Monique Curry on
On Monday, March 4, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that a copyright claimant may only bring a suit for copyright infringement after the copyright has been registered by the Copyright Office, not while the registration is pending.
Consolidation, Like Marriage, Preserves the Distinct Identities and Rights of Its Constituents
By Kelly Landers Hawthorne on
In its recent decision in Hall vs. Hall, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that after a final decision in one of several consolidated cases, the losing party has the immediate right to appeal that decision, even when other consolidated cases are still pending. Courts may consolidate cases for efficiency. Writing for the Court, Justice Roberts made clear, however, that such consolidation does not change the independent nature of the underlying claims, and that consolidated cases retain their separate and distinct identities.