On Friday, June 30, 2023, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Biden v. Nebraska. The case arose after President Biden enacted a plan to cancel between $10,000 and $20,000 in student loans for qualified borrowers through executive action. The Biden Administration argued that the Secretary of Education was granted the authority to forgive student loans in the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act).In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the HEROES Act does not grant the Secretary of Education the authority to establish a student loan forgiveness program discharging approximately $430 billion in student loans and affecting nearly all borrowers. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the Court’s opinion; Justice Barrett filed a concurring opinion focused primarily on the Major Questions Doctrine; Justice Kagan filed the dissenting opinion.In this recorded webinar, Jesse Panuccio discussed the decision.Featuring:--Jesse Panuccio, Partner, Boies Schiller Flexner LLP

Courthouse Steps Decision: Biden v. Nebraska

*This series was formerly known as Teleforums. FedSoc Forums is a virtual discussion series dedicated to providing expert analysis and intellectual commentary on today’s most pressing legal and policy issues. Produced by The Federalist Society’s Practice Groups, FedSoc Forum strives to create balanced conversations in various formats, such as monologues, debates, or panel discussions. In addition to regular episodes, FedSoc Forum features special content covering specific topics in the legal world, such as:Courthouse Steps: A series of rapid response discussions breaking down all the latest SCOTUS cases after oral argument or final decisionA Seat at the Sitting: A monthly series that runs during the Court’s term featuring a panel of constitutional experts discussing the Supreme Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sittingLitigation Update: A series that provides the latest updates in important ongoing cases from all levels of governmentThe Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

News

Politics

The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA), which allows Native tribes to administer their healthcare programs instead of the Indian Health Service (IHS), also requires IHS to pay “contract support costs” (CSCs) to tribes to offset overhead costs incurred by the tribes while administering their healthcare programs. Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (consolidated with Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe) asks whether the IHS must pay CSCs not only to support IHS-funded activities but also to support tribes’ expenditure of income collected directly from third-party insurers.The San Carlos Apache Tribe, exercising its sovereignty in Arizona, managed its healthcare programs and billed outside insurers directly. However, the Tribe encountered difficulties funding the additional healthcare services from third-party revenue because IHS would not pay CSCs for these transactions. The Tribe sued the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, IHS, and the United States for the CSC for the years 2011–2013. The district court dismissed the Tribe’s claim for the third-party-revenue-funded portions of the Tribe’s healthcare program from CSC reimbursement, and the Tribe appealed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the statutory text of 25 U.S.C. § 5325(a) warranted a reversal of the dismissal and remanded further proceedings.The Court heard oral arguments on March 25, 2024, and ruled in the case on June 6, 2024, affirming the Ninth Circuit's holding in a 5-4 decision.Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program, where we will analyze this decision and its possible ramifications.Featuring:Jennifer H. Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg Traurig

Courthouse Steps Decision: Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe

In 1992, Danny Lee Jones was convicted of two first-degree murder charges and one attempted premeditated murder charge by a trial court in Arizona and was sentenced to death. Mr. Jones appealed, and the Arizona Supreme Court upheld his sentence. Later, Mr. Jones sought post-conviction review on multiple grounds, including a federal habeas petition. The District Court deemed the new evidence to be insignificant, but the Ninth Circuit reversed this decision. The Supreme Court heard argument in Thornell v. Jones on April 17, 2024, and issued a decision on May 30, 2024, overturning the Ninth Circuit’s decision on the grounds that it incorrectly interpreted and applied the relevant precedent of Strickland v. Washington.Join us for a Courthouse Steps Decision program where we break down and analyze this decision and what its ramifications may be.Featuring:Robert K. McBride, Partner, Taft Stettinius & Hollister

Courthouse Steps Decision: Thornell v. Jones

In recent years, the Supreme Court has decided two cases in which it held that certain restrictions against registering certain kinds of marks violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. In Matal v. Tam (2017), it invalidated the Lanham Act proscription against registering marks containing terms disparaging toward a person or institution. In Icanu v. Brunetti (2019), it invalidated the Lanham Act proscription against registering marks containing scandalous or immoral terms. The Supreme Court has now decided Vidal v. Elster, in which it adopted this question presented: &ldquo;Whether the refusal to register a mark under Section 1052(c) [Lanham Act section 2(c)] violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when the mark contains criticism of a government official or public figure.&rdquo; At issue was an application to register the mark TRUMP TOO SMALL on various clothing items. Lanham Act section 2(c) prohibits registration of a mark that &ldquo;[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent, or the name, signature, or portrait of a deceased President of the United States during the life of his widow, if any, except by the written consent of the widow.&rdquo; The Federal Circuit held that this proscription violates the Free Speech Clause as applied in this mark-registration application. This Courthouse Steps presentation will discuss the background leading to Vidal v. Elster, review the Court's decision, and discuss its implications for trademark law and free speech. Featuring: Michael K. Friedland, Founding Partner, Friedland Cianfrani LLP Moderator: John B. Farmer, Attorney, Leading-Edge Law Group, PLC

Courthouse Steps Decision: Vidal v. Elster

The Biden Administration recently proposed new regulatory guidelines that would permit agencies to impose price controls on products based on inventions derived from upstream federally funded research. The new regulations would affect such price controls by expanding the “march-in” power of the Bayh-Dole Act.In addition to its core function allowing universities and other contractors to retain ownership of inventions created with federal funds, this law authorizes, under very specific circumstances, the funding agency (e.g., the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the Department of Energy) to grant licenses, without authorization of the patent owner, to any inventions made with funding provided by the agency. The proposed new guidelines would add the price of the end-product derived from those early-stage inventions to the list of specific circumstances.Since its enactment in 1980, the march-in power of the Bayh-Dole Act has never been used. When asked about using the price of the end product as one of the circumstances, the law’s namesake Senators, Birch Bayh and Bob Dole, stated the text of their law did not authorize price-based march-in. Importantly, the NIH has rejected numerous petitions over the past several decades to use the march-in power to lower the prices of patented drugs or medical devices. Proponents of the new regulatory guidelines, however, argue that the statute does authorize an agency to consider price as a march-in trigger and the Biden Administration argues that march-in is a key tool to lower drug prices. This panel discussed the regulatory proposal for price controls under the Bayh-Dole Act and other vehicles (e.g., the IRA and reasonable/reference pricing clauses in licenses or collaborative research agreements), whether they represent regulatory overreach by the Executive Branch, and whether it is wise policy to implement price controls on drugs and other products or services in the U.S. innovation economy.

Is the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s New Proposal on March-in a Price-Control Vehicle?

For several weeks, much media attention has focused on reports of flags flown outside the primary residence and vacation home of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Several publications assert that the flags are associated with support for the &ldquo;Stop the Steal&rdquo; movement, Christian nationalism, and/or the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. These reports have led some reporters and lawmakers to question the impartiality of Justice Alito in cases involving former President Trump, and/or January 6 defendants. Justice Alito has issued statements directly addressing these reports and has not recused himself from any cases. On this topic, the Chief Justice declined a request for a meeting from two Democratic U.S. Senators, stating, in part, that "the format proposed - a meeting with leaders of only one party who have expressed an interest in matters currently pending before the Court - simply underscores that participating in such a meeting would be inadvisable." Is this latest media coverage and Congressional interest part of a growing trend to target certain members of the Court? Is the legitimacy of the Court itself being called into question? This program addresses the contentions made against Justice Alito and the broader implications for journalism, professional ethics, separation of powers, and future respect for the Supreme Court as an essential American institution. Featuring:  Dan Mclaughlin, Senior Writer, National Review Online  Allyson Newton Ho, Partner &amp; Co-Chair, Constitutional and Apellate Law Practice Group, Gibson, Dunn &amp; Crutcher LLP

Courthouse Steps Decision: Biden v. Nebraska

Download our free app to listen on your phone