A group of pharmaceutical manufacturers that participate in the federal 340B drug pricing program challenged a new West Virginia law, S.B. 325, which imposed restrictions and penalties on manufacturers regarding the delivery of discounted drugs to contract pharmacies. The 340B program is a federal scheme where drug manufacturers provide discounts to designated health care providers (“covered entities”) in exchange for access to the Medicaid market. Dissatisfied with the federal program’s scope, West Virginia enacted S.B. 325, which specifically barred manufacturers from restricting delivery of 340B drugs to any location authorized by a covered entity (including contract pharmacies), and from requiring data submission as a condition for delivery, with significant penalties for violations.The manufacturers sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia seeking to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 325, arguing that it was preempted by federal law. The district court found that the manufacturers were likely to succeed on the merits of their preemption claim, that they faced irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities and public interest favored injunctive relief. The court granted a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the statute.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit addressed whether S.B. 325 was preempted by federal law. The Fourth Circuit held that S.B. 325 likely interferes with the federal 340B program by imposing additional conditions on manufacturers solely because of their participation in a federal program, thereby intruding into a domain reserved for federal regulation. The court found that Congress had struck a careful bargain in the 340B program and that West Virginia’s law sought to alter that bargain in a way that conflicted with federal objectives and the enforcement scheme administered by the Department of Health and Human Services. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction, barring enforcement of S.B. 325. View "Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America v. McCuskey" on Justia Law

A trade association representing the majority of the world’s liner shipping services challenged a rule issued by the Federal Maritime Commission. Under recent amendments to the Shipping Act, Congress directed the Commission to define what constitutes an “unreasonable refusal to deal or negotiate” by ocean common carriers regarding vessel space accommodations. The Commission responded by adopting a rule specifying non-binding factors for evaluating unreasonable refusals, including whether a carrier quoted rates vastly above market value, required carriers to submit an annual “documented export policy,” and removed explicit reference to “business decisions” from its list of factors. The association objected, arguing that the rule exceeded the Commission’s authority and was arbitrary and capricious.After the Commission published its final rule, the association filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The association claimed that the Commission lacked authority to consider price in its analysis, that the requirement for a documented export policy was ultra vires and arbitrary, and that removal of the “business decisions” factor was likewise arbitrary. The Commission defended the rule’s approach, asserting its statutory power to require reports and to evaluate factors relevant to reasonableness.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied the petition for review. The court held that the Commission’s consideration of price as an indicator of unreasonable refusal did not amount to unauthorized rate regulation, and that the requirement for a documented export policy was within the Commission’s statutory authority. The court also found that the omission of “business decisions” as a listed factor did not preclude their consideration in individual cases. The court concluded that the rule was neither beyond the Commission’s statutory authority nor arbitrary and capricious. View "World Shipping Council v. FMC" on Justia Law

Mine operators received citations from the Secretary of Labor under the Mine Act for alleged safety violations, some of which were designated as “significant and substantial” (S&S). The operators contested these citations before the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission. Subsequently, the Secretary sought to modify some citations by removing S&S designations and reducing penalties, or to vacate certain citations, as part of proposed settlements. The Secretary provided no explanations for these changes.Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) for the Commission denied the Secretary’s motions to settle or dismiss, emphasizing the lack of explanation for the modifications. Upon interlocutory review, the Commission affirmed the ALJs’ decisions, holding that section 110(k) of the Mine Act requires the Secretary to provide sufficient reasoning and justification when removing S&S designations or vacating citations in the context of settlement motions. The Secretary then petitioned for review of these nonfinal orders in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that it lacked appellate jurisdiction to review the Commission’s nonfinal orders, as these orders did not meet the requirements for immediate appeal under the collateral-order doctrine. The court found the Secretary’s interest in modifying or vacating citations via settlement agreements to be adequately protected by the availability of review after a final order. The court determined that delaying review would not imperil a substantial public interest. Therefore, the court dismissed the Secretary’s petitions for review for lack of jurisdiction. View "Secretary of Labor v. Knight Hawk Coal, LLC" on Justia Law

A class of inmates at the Louisiana State Penitentiary alleged that the prison’s medical care was constitutionally inadequate and that the facility failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The lawsuit began in 2015, and evidence was introduced at trial in 2018. In 2021, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issued a lengthy opinion finding systemic Eighth Amendment violations and ADA/RA noncompliance. While prison officials began making improvements ahead of a scheduled remedial trial, the district court later issued a Remedial Opinion and Order, prescribing detailed institutional changes and appointing special masters to oversee compliance.The district court’s Remedial Order required the state to bear the costs of three special masters, directed broad institutional reforms, and did not expressly adhere to the limitations imposed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA). The court entered final judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, retaining jurisdiction only for compliance procedures. After entry of judgment, the defendants appealed. During the appeal, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the Remedial Order. The Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, subsequently reviewed whether it had appellate jurisdiction and the validity of the district court’s orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that it had appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 or, alternatively, § 1292(a)(1). The Fifth Circuit found that the district court’s Remedial Order violated the PLRA by failing to apply the statutory needs-narrowness-intrusiveness standard, improperly appointing multiple special masters, and requiring the state to pay their fees. The Fifth Circuit also concluded that the district court erred by disregarding ongoing improvements to prison medical care and by misapplying the standards for injunctive relief under the Eighth Amendment and the ADA/RA. The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Parker v. Hooper" on Justia Law

A mother of four regularly sought care at a federally funded health center in Rhode Island from 2006 onward. Over a period of several years, she repeatedly reported persistent, weeks-long headaches with changing characteristics to her primary-care providers, also disclosing experiences of domestic abuse. Despite these reports, she was diagnosed with migraines and prescribed medication, but was never referred to a neurologist or for neuroimaging. In 2019, her symptoms worsened, and she lost consciousness, leading to hospitalization and the discovery of a slow-growing brain tumor, which had caused a buildup of cerebral fluid. Surgery to remove the tumor resulted in cerebellar strokes and permanent neurological damage, severely limiting her mobility and ability to care for her family.After the Department of Health and Human Services denied her administrative claim, she and her family filed suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The district court found negligence by the primary-care providers, awarded her damages for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and homemaker loss, and awarded her children damages for loss of consortium. The government appealed, arguing that the children’s consortium claims were not properly presented administratively, that the homemaker damages were excessive, and that the findings on standard of care, causation, and medical expenses were erroneous.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the children’s loss-of-consortium claims were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and reversed those damages. The court vacated the homemaker damages award as excessive and unsupported by the evidence, remanding for further proceedings. The court affirmed the district court’s findings on negligence and causation and upheld the pain and suffering awards, but reduced the medical expense award by the cost of an unrelated spinal MRI. The judgment was thus affirmed in part, reversed in part, modified in part, and remanded. View "Urizar-Mota v. US" on Justia Law

A medically fragile child, A.E., was the subject of an abuse and neglect proceeding in Hancock County, West Virginia. After an evidentiary hearing, the Circuit Court awarded permanent custody of A.E. to his non-abusive mother, who resides in Florida. The court found that A.E.’s paternal grandparents, who live in West Virginia, were “psychological parents” entitled to visitation. As part of its permanency order, the court required the West Virginia Department of Human Services (DHS) to pay the costs of transporting A.E. from Florida to West Virginia for summer visitation with the grandparents each year until A.E. turned twenty-three.The DHS complied with the court’s order to pay for transporting A.E. to Florida for the custody transition but appealed the part of the order requiring it to pay transportation costs for visitation with the grandparents after permanency was achieved. The DHS argued that the court lacked legal authority for this requirement. No party appealed the custody decision, the visitation grant, or the determination of psychological parent status.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed the case de novo, focusing on whether the circuit court could require the DHS to pay visitation-related expenses after permanency. The high court held that, absent explicit statutory authority, circuit courts may not order the DHS to pay for such expenses after permanency has been achieved in an abuse and neglect proceeding. The court found no statutory or equitable basis for the order and further noted that the court’s jurisdiction and the DHS’s responsibilities end when the child turns eighteen or permanency is reached. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the portion of the order requiring the DHS to pay post-permanency transportation costs and remanded for entry of an amended order. View "In re A.E." on Justia Law

An inmate in an Arkansas maximum-security unit, who is Muslim, challenged a change in prison policy regarding meals served during Ramadan. Previously, fasting Muslims received a “double-portion” dinner after sunset and a standard breakfast before dawn. In 2023, the prison discontinued the double-portion dinner, providing only standard portions for both meals, but continued to serve them at the appropriate times for religious observance. The meals together provided at least 2,000 calories per day. The inmate often skipped the provided breakfast during Ramadan, preferring to eat commissary food instead, which he could easily obtain.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, granted summary judgment to the prison officials, concluding that the new meal policy did not violate the inmate’s rights under the Eighth Amendment or the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). The court found that the inmate’s allegations of hunger and physical symptoms were not corroborated by medical evidence, and that the inmate’s ability to supplement with commissary food meant he was not denied adequate nutrition.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that the prison’s policy did not impose a substantial burden on the inmate’s religious exercise under RLUIPA. The court emphasized that the inmate’s claimed need for 3,000 calories was not rooted in religious belief, but rather based on the institution’s general meal plan. The record showed that the meals provided were nutritionally adequate and that the inmate voluntarily skipped breakfast, supplementing from the commissary. Because the inmate failed to show a genuine dispute of material fact regarding a substantial burden on his religious exercise, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "Holt v. Payne" on Justia Law

Minority shareholders of an Argentine oil and gas company, previously privatized in 1993, became involved in litigation after the Argentine government expropriated a majority stake in the company in 2012. The government’s acquisition of shares was conducted without making a public tender offer to minority shareholders, a process that was explicitly required by the company’s bylaws to protect such shareholders in the event of a takeover. The plaintiffs, consisting of Spanish entities and a New York hedge fund, had acquired significant stakes in the company, and after the expropriation, they claimed that they suffered substantial financial losses due to the government’s failure to comply with the tender offer requirement.The plaintiffs sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, asserting breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims under Argentine law against both the Argentine Republic and the company. After extensive litigation, the district court found in favor of the plaintiffs on their breach of contract claims against the Argentine Republic, awarding over $16 billion in damages, but granted summary judgment to the company, finding it had no obligation to enforce the tender offer provision. The court also dismissed the promissory estoppel claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs' breach of contract damages claims against the Argentine Republic and the company were not cognizable under Argentine law, reasoning that the bylaws did not create enforceable bilateral obligations between shareholders and that Argentine public law governing expropriation precluded such claims. The court affirmed the dismissal of the promissory estoppel claims and judgment in favor of the company, but reversed the judgment against the Argentine Republic, remanding for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Petersen Energía v. Argentine Republic" on Justia Law

Two high-ranking Kansas executive officials became embroiled in disputes stemming from federal government actions related to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and federal grant funding for state agencies. The federal government requested sensitive data from state SNAP programs and threatened to withhold funding if states did not comply. The Kansas Governor viewed these demands as unlawful and opposed compliance, while the Kansas Attorney General disagreed with the Governor’s legal position and asserted that only his office could represent Kansas in related legal challenges. This led to friction over which state official had authority to control litigation involving the state’s interests.The Governor filed a quo warranto petition directly in the Kansas Supreme Court, seeking a declaration that she had constitutional authority to litigate on behalf of the state or, alternatively, on behalf of her office and its agencies. The Attorney General took the position that only he could represent the state as a whole, but conceded there was no objection to the Governor representing her office or executive agencies when they, not the state as a whole, were the real party in interest. The dispute in the lower courts did not involve any jury findings, and the Kansas Supreme Court had original jurisdiction to consider the petition.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas concluded that, as the case developed, the parties narrowed their disagreement. Both agreed that the Attorney General speaks for the state when the state is the real party in interest, and the Governor speaks for her office or agencies when they are the real party in interest. Because the parties’ positions converged and the remaining dispute was not of significant public importance or suitable for resolution through quo warranto, the Kansas Supreme Court declined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction and dismissed the Governor’s petition. View "Kelly v. Kobach " on Justia Law

Florida sought approval from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assume authority for issuing permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which would allow parties to discharge pollutants into state waters. To streamline the process for permit applicants and reduce the burden of complying with the Endangered Species Act (ESA), Florida proposed a permitting program in which the state would monitor and protect ESA-listed species primarily through a “technical assistance process,” with only advisory input from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The EPA and FWS approved Florida’s proposal after the FWS issued a programmatic Biological Opinion (BiOp) and Incidental Take Statement (ITS) that found no jeopardy to protected species and exempted permittees from further ESA liability, relying heavily on Florida’s assurances rather than detailed, up-front analysis.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia reviewed the actions of the EPA and FWS after environmental groups challenged Florida’s permitting program, asserting violations of the ESA and Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The district court found that the FWS’s BiOp and ITS were unlawful because they failed to conduct the required analyses and deferred essential protections to a less rigorous state-run process. The court also determined the EPA’s reliance on these documents was impermissible and that the EPA had wrongly failed to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). As a remedy, the district court vacated the EPA’s approval of Florida’s permitting program along with the BiOp and ITS.On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the environmental groups had standing and their claims were ripe. It concluded that the FWS’s BiOp and ITS did not comply with the ESA, that the EPA’s reliance on those documents was unlawful, and that the EPA erred by not consulting with the NMFS. The court required vacatur of the EPA’s approval of Florida’s permitting program and the associated ESA documents. View "Center for Biological Diversity v. Zeldin" on Justia Law