1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Tucker Act Case Regarding ACA Payments

Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Tucker Act Case Regarding ACA Payments

Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.24.19

On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Maine Cmty. Health Options v. United States (a C&M case), on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Maine, along with two companion cases, seeks review of the Federal Circuit’s opinion in the Affordable Care Act “risk corridors” cases, in which the Court held that while the ACA’s risk corridors program contained a mandatory payment obligation on the part of the Government, that payment obligation was suspended by appropriations riders that restricted HHS funds available to satisfy the obligation. The Federal Circuit reached this conclusion notwithstanding the fact that 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 sought review of the Federal Circuit’s opinion on several grounds, including (i) that the restriction of funds to an agency via appropriations rider does not extinguish a statutory payment obligation of the United States, and (ii) that 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. 

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 06.15.26

Kansas Federal Court Applies “Selective Enforcement” Theory to Reject DTSA Claim

A Kansas federal court held that inconsistent enforcement of trade secret rights can defeat a claim under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). In Edelman Financial Engines, LLC v. Mariner Wealth Advisors LLC, No. 2:23-cv-02515-HLT (D. Kan. June 5, 2026), the court applied a selective enforcement theory, holding that when a company does not consistently pursue legal remedies against similarly situated former employees, that inconsistency can be affirmative evidence that it failed to protect its trade secrets. While the selective enforcement theory has appeared in academic hypothetical discussions, the decision appears to be one of the clearest judicial applications of a “selective enforcement” theory in a trade secret case....