Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath

Issues

Does the False Claims Act cover reimbursement requests made to a program regulated by the Federal Communications Commission but largely funded by private service providers?

This case asks the Court to determine whether reimbursement requests made by schools and public libraries to the Federal Communications Commission’s E-Rate program can constitute false “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA). Wisconsin Bell contends that the FCA does not cover reimbursement requests to the E-Rate program because the money for the E-Rate program’s funds comes solely from private companies, and the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is not an agent of the federal government. The federal government argues that the FCA does cover reimbursement requests to the E-Rate program because the funds are made available by the federal government, and the federal government can control the USAC. This case touches on important questions regarding the FCA’s scope and the FCA’s impact on businesses working with the federal government.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether reimbursement requests submitted to the Federal Communications Commission's E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act.

A company violates the False Claims Act (FCA) if it “knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment or approval” that is material to the government’s decision to use federal funds. 31 U.S.C.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank

Issues

Does a company mislead investors when it discloses a future risk without mentioning that the potential bad event has happened before?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether a company’s risk disclosure to investors is false or misleading when the company does not disclose a risk that has materialized in the past, even when that past event poses no risk of ongoing or future harm to the company. In this case, Facebook failed to disclose a past data breach, the Cambridge Analytica Scandal, in its 2016 10-K disclosures. Shareholders sued the company and its executives, arguing that the failure to disclose this information was false or misleading. On one hand, Facebook argues that it does not have to disclose such past events in the form at issue because risk disclosures are forward-looking and investors understand that. On the other hand, Amalgamated Bank contends that companies must disclose information about past bad events because stating a risk as a hypothetical event could mislead investors into believing there have been no past bad events. The outcome of this case will affect the requirements of risk disclosures, which could impact the quantity and quality of disclosure information, how much companies must disclose, and whether investors’ demands are met.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether risk disclosures are false or misleading when they do not disclose that a risk has materialized in the past, even if that past event presents no known risk of ongoing or future business harm

In 2014, Professor Aleksandr Kogan created an app that paid users for taking a psychological test. Amalgamated Bank v. Facebook, Inc. at 11–12. The app also collected data on the quiz takers and their Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) friends resulting in data collection from over 30 million Facebook profiles. Id.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera

Issues

Are employers seeking to invoke an FLSA exemption required to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard or a clear and convincing evidence standard?

This case asks for the Supreme Court to decide which standard of proof applies when an employer asserts an FLSA exemption as an affirmative defense from liability: preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. Petitioners, E.M.D. Sales, Inc., et al. (“E.M.D.”), argue that the clear and convincing evidence standard applies only in limited circumstances, not to mere monetary disputes between private parties. Further, E.M.D. asserts that the risk of erroneous decision is equal between the parties. Respondents Faustino Sanchez Carrera et al. (“Carrera”), argue that a clear and convincing evidence standard applies because the FLSA protects important interests. Further, Carrera argues the clear and convincing evidence standard is necessary to allocate the unequal risks among employers and employees. The outcome of this case has serious implications for labor law.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the burden of proof that employers must satisfy to demonstrate the applicability of a Fair Labor Standards Act exemption is a mere preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence.

Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) in 1938 to protect employees from unfair labor practices. Brief for Petitioners, E.M.D. Sales, Inc. et al. at 4–5.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Stewart Schwab for his guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Becerra

Issues

Are patients “entitled to” SSI benefits when they are eligible for SSI benefits or when they are receiving cash SSI benefits?

The Disproportionate Share Hospital adjustment (“DSH”) is a statutory provision administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) that increases payments to hospitals serving high percentages of low-income patients to account for their increased treatment costs. At issue here is how eligibility for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”) affects these DSH payments. Advocate Christ Medical Center argues that the phrase “entitled to [SSI] benefits” in the DSH provision should include all patients enrolled in the SSI program, even if they do not receive monthly cash payments. HHS counters that only patients receiving cash benefits during hospitalization should count. This case has important ramifications on agency interpretation, administrative workability, and hospitals’ ability to accept low-income patients.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the phrase “entitled ... to benefits,” used twice in the same sentence of the Medicare Act, means the same thing for Medicare part A and Supplemental Social Security benefits, such that it includes all who meet basic program eligibility criteria, whether or not benefits are actually received.

Administered by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) within the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), the Medicare program aims to provide health insurance to elderly or disabled individuals. Advocate Christ Med. Ctr. v. Becerra at 349, 351. Hospitals receive a fixed payment for treating a Medicare patient. Id. At 349.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency

Issues

Does the Clean Water Act allow the Environmental Protection Agency to discipline permit-holders for violations of water quality standards without enumerating specific limits to which permit holders’ water discharges must conform?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine if the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) must impose specific limits in the permits it distributes under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The CWA empowers the EPA to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits to cities and businesses that discharge waste. The City of San Francisco contends that the EPA can only establish limitations on effluent discharges under the permit, and that it lacks the authority to establish other generic requirements. The EPA counters that its authority reaches beyond effluent limitations and that it is permitted to enforce limitations on water receiving standards. The outcome of this case has profound implications on businesses’ ability to avoid legal liability, as well as the interests of local communities.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Clean Water Act allows EPA (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in NPDES permits that subject permitholders to enforcement for exceedances of water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.

Like most cities in the United States, San Francisco operates a combined sewer system that collects both sewage and stormwater runoff. City of San Francisco v. U.S. EPA (“Ninth Circuit”) at 7. During extreme weather, the system occasionally exceeds capacity causing a combined sewer overflow (“CSO”) that discharges pollutants into surrounding waterways.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn

Issues

Do economic harms, such as losing employment, qualify as injury to “business or property” under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, if those harms stem from personal injuries, such as ingesting an unwanted drug?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property” for the purposes of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). Commercial truck driver Horn ingested Dixie X to alleviate his back pain, after learning from the sellers that it contained no THC, even though it did. After testing positive for THC in a random drug test from his employer, Horn was fired. He then sued the sellers for injury to his business under RICO. Medical Marijuana, Inc. argues that ingestion of an unwanted substance like THC is a personal injury, and that economic damages from such an injury do not turn it into an injury to “business or property.” Horn claims that losing his job because of Medical Marijuana’s alleged fraud is an injury to “business or property.” This case has significant implications for the rights of human trafficking victims, the cost of doing business in consumer products, and the vitality of the hemp industry.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether economic harms resulting from personal injuries are injuries to “business or property by reason of” the defendant’s acts for purposes of a civil treble-damages action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Respondent, Douglas Horn, was a commercial truck driver for fourteen years before the event leading to this case occurred. Brief for Respondent, Horn at 3–4. In February 2012, he was involved in a trucking accident in which he sustained injuries to his shoulder and back.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Bufkin v. McDonough

Issues

Must the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule was properly applied during the claims process when reviewing veterans’ benefits claims? 

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine the standard of review that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”) should apply to claims on appeal. Bufkin argues that the Veterans Court must review the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’ and the Board of Veteran Appeals’ application of “the benefit of the doubt” where any evidence material to the veteran’s disability-benefits claim is in approximate balance. Further, Bufkin contends that in conducting this separate review, the Veterans Court is reviewing a matter of law, which requires a more demanding standard of review than clear error. McDonough counters that the Veterans Court is instead engaging in a factual review, arguing it should not reassess the facts to determine whether the benefit-of-the-doubt rule applies unless clearly erroneous. McDonough asserts that the Veterans Court need only consider whether the Department of Veterans Affairs properly applied the rule when raised. The outcome of this case has future implications for veterans’ disability benefits claims and the scope of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ powers.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must ensure that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) was properly applied during the claims process to satisfy 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(1), which directs the court to “take due account” of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ application of that rule.

In 1988, Congress enacted the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act (“VJRA”) creating the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), a specialized Article I tribunal meant to review

Additional Resources

●  Jimmy Hoover, Justices Will Decide If Vets Are Getting the 'Benefit of the Doubt', The National Law Journal (Apr. 30, 2024).

●  Sarah Barker, Supreme Court to Rule on Benefit of the Doubt Rule in Veterans’ Benefits Cases, Mason Veterans and Servicemembers Legal Clinic (May 13, 2024).

Submit for publication
0

Bouarfa v. Mayorkas

Issues

Can a visa petitioner challenge an immigration visa revocation decision in court if the revocation is based on the incorrect application of non-discretionary criteria?

The questions for the Supreme Court to consider are: first, whether USCIS can revoke a visa petition on discretionary grounds based on non-discretionary reasoning; second, whether courts can examine this decision to revoke a visa petition; and third, whether an applicant can order a review of a court’s petition denial. Petitioner Amina Bouarfa argues that courts should be able to review discretionary USCIS decisions where the premise for the decision is non-discretionary, and that an applicant is entitled to a court review these decisions. Respondents Alejandro Mayorkas and the Department of Homeland Security counter that the plain statutory language of immigration law prohibits Article III court review of these discretionary decisions; and, instead, USCIS has control over reviewing and reversing immigration decisions. The outcome of this case will influence the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether a visa petitioner may obtain judicial review when an approved petition is revoked on the basis of non-discretionary criteria.

In 2014, Petitioner Amina Bouarfa, a U.S. citizen, filed an I-130 immediate relative visa petition with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”), a division of the Department of Homeland Security (“the agency”), on behalf of her husband, Ala’a Hamayel, a noncitizen from Palestine. Bouarfa v. Mayorkas at 2–3. Upon approval from USCIS, an I-130 petition allows a U.S.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Williams v. Washington

Issues

Must claimants exhaust required state administrative remedies to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether it is necessary for claimants to exhaust state remedies before bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court. Williams, et al. argue that the language of § 1983 and the Supremacy Clause compel states to hear § 1983 claims. Washington counters that state sovereignty allows states to create laws about their own courts’ jurisdiction regardless of whether this denies certain federal claims. This case has serious implications for plaintiffs’ choice of forum when bringing a § 1983 claim and on the allocation of power between state and federal governments.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether exhaustion of state administrative remedies is required to bring claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court.

In 1871, Congress enacted § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 to create a right of action for individuals to sue state officials for violations of their civil rights and safeguard citizens from discrimination caused by state law. U.S.C. § 1983. Federal courts maintain original jurisdiction over civil rights brought under § 1983. 28 U.S.C.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger

Issues

Does amending a complaint to omit a federal question after removal to federal court defeat federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331? Does a post-removal amendment restrict a federal district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether the post-removal amendment of a complaint can defeat federal-question subject matter jurisdiction and preclude a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. On one hand, Royal Canin and Purina argue both that federal-question jurisdiction cannot be extinguished by amending a complaint and also that a district court can exercise supplemental jurisdiction even after the resolution of all federal claims. On the other hand, Anna Wullschleger and Gerald Brewer contend that the amended complaint determines federal-question jurisdiction, and a federal district court should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction when no federal claim remains in the lawsuit. The outcome of this case has heavy implications for forum manipulation and federalism.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether a post-removal amendment of a complaint to omit federal questions defeats federal-question subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) whether such a post-removal amendment of a complaint precludes a district court from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s remaining state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

Anastasia Wullschleger and Geraldine Brewer purchased prescription pet food from Royal Canin and Purina under the impression that the companies formulated the food to treat their pets’ health and disease problems. Brief for Respondents in Opposition, Anastasia Wullschleger at 4.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Maggie Gardner for her guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

  • Kimberly Strawbridge Robinson, Dog Food Suit Location Dispute to Get US Supreme Court Review, Bloomberg (April 29, 2024).
  • Richard S. Davis, Master of Its Choice of Forum?: Supreme Court to Decide if a Plaintiff May Compel Remand of a Removed Case by Voluntarily Dismissing Its Federal Claims, Foley & Lardner, LLP (May 22, 2024).

 

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to