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 | 04.15.26

Who Invented That? When AI Writes the Code, Patent Validity Issues May Follow

In Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reaffirmed what happens when a patent incorrectly lists the true inventors, and that error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256(b), which requires notice and a hearing for all “parties concerned.” In Fortress, the patent owner sought judicial correction to add an inventor under § 256(b), but that inventor could not be located. Because the missing inventor qualified as a “concerned” party under the statute, the lack of notice and a hearing for that inventor made correction under § 256(b) impossible, and the patents could not be saved from invalidity....