The Court began the day with 33 outstanding cases to be decided, well behind the curve for announcing opinions this late in the year. And then there were 30.
A cursory review of the Order List today did not have anything that jumped out at me as particulalry interesting.
The first opinion was Siegel v. Fitzgerald, a rare unanimous opinion by Justice Sotomayor, reversing th Fourt Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court holds that Congress’s enactment of a significant fee increase that exempted bankruptcy debtors in two states violated the uniformity requirement of the Constitution’s bankruptcy clause.
The second opinion was Gallardo v. Marstiller, by Justice Thomas, by a vote of 7-2. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justice Breyer. This iss the case of a Florida woman who suffered catastrophic injuries when she was hit by a pickup truck after getting off a school bus in 2008. A lawsuit brought on her behalf by her parents led to a settlement of $800,000, almost all of which was designated for future expenses. Florida’s Medicaid program, which had paid more than $800,000 for her care, was seeking reimbursement for past expenses from that settlement. The Court holds that the Medicaid Act permits a state to seek reimbursement from settlement payments allocated for future medical care. Florida may seen reimbursement from that settlement.
In her dissent, Sotomayor says that the Court’s holding today “is inconsistent with the structure of the Medicaid program and will cause needless unfairness and disruption.”
Note: These type of settlements typically provide for future medical expenses. Lawyers will now get around this opinion by assigning everything to medical expenses incurred and for general damages for pain and suffering.
The third and final case was Southwest Airlines v. Saxon, a rare unanimous decision from Justice Thomas (Justice Barrett did not participate in the case). The Court holds that an airline employee who works as a ramp supervisor belongs to a “class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce” to which the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section §1 exemption applies. Saxon is a “transportation worker” and therefore not required to arbitrate her wage dispute with the airline.
There are going to be quite a few decisions like this over the coming weeks. The blockbuster opinions are likely to come later in the month, but you never can tell. We watch the Court so you don’t have to.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.