Capitol Comments

In Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association the Supreme Court will decide whether states’ attempts to regulate pharmacy benefit managers’ (PBMs) drug-reimbursement rates are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

PBMs are an intermediary between health plans and pharmacies. Among other things, they set reimbursement rates to pharmacies dispensing generic drugs. Contracts between PBMs and pharmacies create pharmacy networks. According to the Eighth Circuit, “[b]ased upon these contracts and in order to participate in a preferred network, some pharmacies choose to accept lower reimbursements for dispensed prescriptions.” So, in some instance pharmacies lose money.

Arkansas passed a law requiring that pharmacies “be reimbursed for generic drugs at a price equal to or higher than the pharmacies’ cost for the drug based on the invoice from the wholesaler.”

The question the Supreme Court will decide in City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton is whether a local government must return a vehicle impounded because of code violations immediately upon a debtor filing for bankruptcy.

The City of Chicago impounds vehicles where debtors have three or more unpaid fines. Robbin Fulton’s vehicle was impounded for this reason. She filed for bankruptcy and asked the City to turn over her vehicle...

The question the Supreme Court will decide in McGirt v. Oklahoma may sound familiar: “whether the prosecution of an enrolled member of the Creek Tribe for crimes committed within the historical Creek boundaries is subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction.” The Supreme Court agreed to decide this very same question last term in Sharp v. Murphy. But the Court didn’t...

In a long-awaited decision in Texas v. Azar the Fifth Circuit held that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) individual mandate is unconstitutional. This decision has no practical effect because no one is currently required to pay the shared-responsibility payment. A year ago, a federal district court held the individual mandate is inseverable from the ACA rendering the entire law unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit sent the case back to the lower court...

The Supreme Court has held that excessive force violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The question in Torres v. Madrid is whether police have “seized” someone who they have used force against who has gotten away.   

In this case police officers approached Roxanne Torres thinking she may be the person they intended to arrest. At the time Torres was “tripping” from using meth for several days...

Delaware’s Constitution requires that three state courts be balanced between the two major political parties. The main question before the Supreme Court in Carney v. Adams is whether this scheme violates the First Amendment.

Per Delaware’s Constitution no more than half of the members of the Delaware Supreme Court, Superior Court, or Chancery Court may be of the same major political party.

Delaware attorney James Adams wants to be a...

The Supreme Court refuses to review thousands of lower court decisions every year. Its decision to not review Martin v. City of Boise isn’t entirely surprising. The Supreme Court generally only agrees to hear cases where there is a circuit split—that is the lower courts have disagreed on how the law applies to a particular issue. Martin v. City of Boise raised no circuit split.

In Martin v. City of Boise the Ninth...

CSG Midwest
As of September, Illinois and Minnesota were among the 15 U.S. states that banned all drivers from using handheld devices, according to the Governors Highway Safety Association. These are all primary enforcement laws, which means that police can stop drivers for violating the ban; no other infraction needs to have occurred. (With secondary offenses, officers must have first stopped the driver for another violation.)
CSG Midwest
It’s a word and a power of the legislative branch most commonly associated these days with removing a U.S. president from office. But “impeachment” not only appears in nearly all of the nation’s state constitutions, its inclusion in them — as a check against overreach or abuses of power by state-level executive and judicial branches — predated the writing of the U.S. Constitution.
“Ten of the 12 state constitutions at the time already had impeachment language in them,” notes Frank Bowman, a professor at the University of Missouri School of Law.
The reason: The drafters of those state constitutions were well-versed in English history, and aware of how and why Parliament used the threat of removing a monarch’s ministers from office as a way to curb abuses of power.

Pages