January 14, 2020

The United States Supreme Court Granted Review in 3 Cases This Past Week:

Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass’n, No. 18-540.
Most states have enacted legislation regulating “pharmacy benefit managers”—businesses that act as middlemen between health insurers and pharmacies, earning money on the difference between what they charge insurers for prescription drugs and what they pay the pharmacies for those drugs. Do these state regulations “relate to” employee benefit plans, so as to be preempted by ERISA?

Salinas v. United States Railroad Retirement Board, No. 19-199.
A “final decision” of the Railroad Retirement Board is subject to judicial review in the Courts of Appeals. Is such review available when the Board denies a request to reopen a previous benefits determination?

Barr v. American Ass’n of Political Consultants, No. 19-631.
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits most automatically-dialed calls to cellular phones, but it contains an exception for calls “to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States.” Is that an unconstitutional content-based speech regulation? If so, is the proper remedy to strike down the exception—causing the statute to prohibit more speech—or instead to invalidate or narrow the ban on auto-dialed calls itself?

The Faegre Baker Daniels website uses cookies to make your browsing experience as useful as possible. In order to have the full site experience, keep cookies enabled on your web browser. By browsing our site with cookies enabled, you are agreeing to their use. Review Faegre Baker Daniels' cookies information for more details.