Health Plans Seek Supreme Court Review in ACA "Risk Corridors" Cases
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.12.19
On February 4, several health plans (including C&M client Maine Community Health Options) filed petitions for certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s opinion in the ACA “risk corridors” cases, which held that while the risk corridors program contained a mandatory payment obligation on the part of the Government, that payment obligation was temporarily suspended by appropriations riders that restricted HHS funds available to satisfy the obligation, even though the riders did not amend or repeal the statutory payment obligation and even though the health plans had already performed their own reciprocal obligations under the statute. The petitioners are seeking review of the Federal Circuit’s opinion on several grounds, including (i) the restriction of funds to an agency via appropriations rider does not extinguish a statutory payment obligation of the United States, (ii) a rider that does not by its terms repeal or amend a money-mandating statute cannot impliedly and retroactively extinguish the Government’s payment obligation. The Maine petition is linked here.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
