|
|
|
Anxiety over Supreme Court's latest dive into health care
Lawyer Media News |
2015/02/04 09:53
|
Nearly five years after President Barack Obama signed his health care overhaul into law, its fate is yet again in the hands of the Supreme Court.
This time it's not just the White House and Democrats who have reason to be anxious. Republican lawmakers and governors won't escape the political fallout if the court invalidates insurance subsidies worth billions of dollars to people in more than 30 states.
Obama's law offers subsidized private insurance to people who don't have access to it on the job. Without financial assistance with their premiums, millions of those consumers would drop coverage.
And disruptions in the affected states don't end there. If droves of healthy people bail out of HealthCare.gov, residents buying individual policies outside the government market would face a jump in premiums. That's because self-pay customers are in the same insurance pool as the subsidized ones.
Health insurers spent millions to defeat the law as it was being debated. But the industry told the court last month that the subsidies are a key to making the insurance overhaul work. Withdrawing them would "make the situation worse than it was before" Congress passed the Affordable Care Act.
The debate over "Obamacare" was messy enough when just politics and ideology were involved. It gets really dicey with the well-being of millions of people in the balance. "It is not simply a function of law or ideology; there are practical impacts on high numbers of people," said Republican Mike Leavitt, a former federal health secretary.
The legal issues involve the leeway accorded to federal agencies in applying complex legislation. Opponents argue that the precise wording of the law only allows subsidies in states that have set up their own insurance markets, or exchanges. That would leave out most beneficiaries, who live in states where the federal government runs the exchanges. The administration and Democratic lawmakers who wrote the law say Congress' clear intent was to provide subsidies to people in every state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
High court rejects military contractors appeals
Lawyer Media News |
2015/01/20 11:20
|
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned away three appeals from military contractor KBR Inc. that seek to shut down lawsuits over a soldier's electrocution in Iraq and open-air burn pits in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The justices offered no comment in allowing the lawsuits to proceed.
One lawsuit was filed by the parents of Staff Sgt. Ryan Maseth, who was electrocuted in his barracks shower at an Army base in Iraq in 2008. The suit claims KBR unit Kellogg Brown & Root Services Inc. was legally responsible for the shoddy electrical work that was common in Iraqi-built structures taken over by the U.S. military. KBR disputes that claim.
Dozens of lawsuits by soldiers and others assert they were harmed by improper waste disposal while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They seek to hold KBR and Halliburton Co. responsible for exposing soldiers to toxic emissions and contaminated water when they burned waste in open pits without proper safety controls.
The contractors say they cannot be sued because they essentially were operating in war zones as an extension of the military.
The Obama administration agreed with the contractors that lower courts should have dismissed the lawsuits, but said the Supreme Court should not get involved now because lower courts still could dismiss or narrow the claims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Court hears dispute over pay for security checks
Lawyer Media News |
2014/10/13 16:54
|
Workers who fill customer orders for Internet retailer Amazon might be out of luck in their quest to be paid for time they spend going through security checkpoints each day.
Several Supreme Court justices expressed doubts Wednesday during arguments over whether federal law entitles workers to compensation for security measures to prevent employee theft.
The case is being watched closely by business groups concerned that employers could be liable for billions of dollars in retroactive pay for security check procedures that have become routine in retail and other industries.
Workers have battled for decades with employers over what tasks they should or shouldn't be paid for. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that workers must be paid for time putting on protective gear for work, but not for time waiting to take it off. And the court has found that butchers deserve to be paid for time sharpening their knives, which are essential to working at a meatpacking plant.
The latest dispute involves two former workers at a Nevada warehouse who say their employer, Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc., made them to wait up to 25 minutes in security lines at the end of every shift. Integrity provides staffers for Amazon warehouses.
Amazon spokeswoman Kelly Cheeseman says the company's data shows that warehouse employees walk through security screenings "with little or no wait."
A federal appeals court ruled last year that the workers, Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro, deserved to be paid because the anti-theft screenings were necessary to the primary work performed by warehouse workers and it was done for the employer's benefit. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Investors to Supreme Court: Deny Argentine do-over
Lawyer Media News |
2014/05/09 11:21
|
Argentina's opponents have filed their last arguments with the U.S. Supreme Court, urging justices to deny the South American government's appeal of a $1.4 billion debt ruling because President Cristina Fernandez has repeatedly vowed not to honor any ruling that goes against her.
Argentina wants the court to overturn a ruling it says would provoke a catastrophic default by forcing it to pay $1.4 billion in cash to the investors it calls "vulture funds." These investors, led by billionaire Paul Singer's NML Capital Ltd., snapped up Argentina's defaulted debt when its economy crashed a decade ago and have litigated ever since, seeking payment in full plus interest even after 92 percent of other bondholders agreed to provide generous debt relief in exchange for regular payments on new bonds.
"Argentina already has made clear that it will not obey any adverse decision on the questions it presents," reads NML's brief, filed just before Wednesday night's deadline.
"Argentina ultimately is not interested in any court's views concerning those questions. By Argentina's lights, it has the final word, and it will recognize a judicial ruling only if it accords with Argentina's conclusions," NML said.
The "Aurelius Respondents," another group of hedge funds and holding companies based in the Cayman Islands and the US state of Delaware to avoid scrutiny and taxes, also filed a brief, urging the justices to deny Argentina's "do-over" request. "A chorus of disinterested parties has recognized that Argentina is without peer in its mistreatment of private-sector creditors," their brief said. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lawsuit seeks access to more secret court opinions
Lawyer Media News |
2014/05/02 11:00
|
The Obama administration has failed to turn over documents under public-records requests detailing still-secret court orders about the scope and legality of National Security Agency surveillance, according to a lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, said the Justice Department failed under its legally prescribed deadline to hand over documents in four requests since last year under the Freedom of Information Act. The requests sought, among other documents, secret opinions from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court exploring whether the NSA violated the law in collecting Americans' Internet communications.
A Justice Department spokesman said Thursday that the agency was "committed to a transparent and open government, and makes every attempt to comply with Freedom of Information requests in a timely and efficient manner while ensuring that classified or sensitive information is not improperly released."
The lawsuit comes at a time when the president has promised to be more transparent on how the intelligence agencies conduct surveillance. As part of its response to the fallout from former NSA systems analyst Edward Snowden's disclosures, the administration has declassified hundreds of pages of documents regarding the secret surveillance programs, including many of the surveillance court opinions.
The Electronic Frontier Foundation has aggressively sought access to the secret court's records, and some recently disclosed documents were the result of those lawsuits. EFF's most recent FOIA requests, among those challenged Thursday in U.S. District Court in Washington, also sought opinions from the secret appeals court and, if any were to exist, at the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gov. Snyder signs jury duty, trampoline court laws
Lawyer Media News |
2014/02/20 14:32
|
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has signed a law letting full-time college students postpone jury duty until the end of the school year.
The governor on Tuesday also approved rules for indoor trampoline parks where adults and kids can bounce around for a fee.
Snyder says jury duty is "an important part of our civil responsibility" but can be disruptive to college students' studies. A similar exemption already exists for high school students.
The other law requires trampoline courts to publicly display rules and inform customers of the activity's inherent dangers. Trampoliners also must adhere to rules specified in the law.
A trampoline user, spectator or operator who violates the law is liable for damages in civil lawsuits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
