R

Listen to the episode on Spotify

At the center of a subtle change in disability law, the Supreme Court has said that students claiming their schools discriminated against them don’t have to prove that officials acted in “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” Instead, those students use the same straightforward rules that apply to other cases of disability discrimination.

This ruling overturns a higher bar set by the Eighth Circuit, which had made it tougher for students to bring their claims forward. Now the Supreme Court sent the case back to that court to be handled under the usual standards.

With this decision, families will face a clearer path when they say their children were denied equal access in the classroom. Stay tuned—we’ll break down what this means for schools and for kids across the country.

Summary of the Case

A. J. T. is a teenage student with a severe form of epilepsy whose seizures preclude her from attending school before noon but leave her able to learn from noon to 6 p.m. After moving to Osseo Area Schools (Dist. No. 279), her parents twice sought to include evening instruction in her IEP; the district denied those requests, cutting her instructional day to 4.25 hours versus 6.5 for nondisabled peers. They prevailed on an IDEA administrative complaint and in federal court, securing compensatory education and after-hours instruction. They then sued under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Eighth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the district on the ground that educational discrimination claims require a heightened showing of "bad faith or gross misjudgment" (Monahan v. Nebraska), which A. J. T. had not made. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the circuit split over whether ADA/§ 504 claims involving public-school services must satisfy that elevated standard.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a unanimous Court, held that Title II and § 504 claimants relating to educational services are subject to the same requirements applied elsewhere under those statutes—no showing of intent to discriminate is required to obtain injunctive relief, and intentional discrimination (often shown by "deliberate indifference") is required only for compensatory damages. The Court observed that both statutes prohibit discrimination "by reason of" disability and confer remedies on "any person." It rejected the Eighth Circuit's Monahan-derived "bad faith or gross misjudgment" rule as incompatible with IDEA's non-exclusivity provision, and vacated and remanded the judgment.

Separate Opinions

Justice Thomas (joined by Justice Kavanaugh) concurred in full but stated that, in a future case properly presented, he would revisit whether ADA/§ 504 should uniformly require intent to discriminate—contending that "discrimination" necessarily implies intent and that Title II's prescriptions on States implicate Spending- and Fourteenth-Amendment limits.

Justice Sotomayor (joined by Justice Jackson) emphasized that the statutes' text and legislative history refute any improper-purpose gloss, underscoring that discrimination "most often" stems from "benign neglect" and that passive-voice drafting and affirmative-accommodation duties confirm no animus requirement.

How Disability Discrimination Standards Apply in Education Settings

The relationship between different disability laws is crucial to understanding this case. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act broadly prohibit discrimination based on disability and allow for both injunctive relief and monetary damages. Meanwhile, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) specifically ensures appropriate education through individualized programs.

After a previous Supreme Court case limited disability rights, Congress clarified that IDEA procedures don't restrict rights available under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. The Eighth Circuit's requirement for showing "bad faith or gross misjudgment" in education cases improperly narrowed the protections that should be available under disability discrimination laws.

The Court's ruling confirms that the standards for proving discrimination should be consistent across different contexts - whether in schools, workplaces, or public services. For injunctive relief (like ordering a school to provide evening instruction), no proof of discriminatory intent is needed. Only when seeking monetary damages must a plaintiff show intentional discrimination, typically through evidence of "deliberate indifference" to their rights.

Listen to the episode on Spotify

When does a half‐truth cross the line into a punishable lie? That’s what the Supreme Court asked when it looked at a law banning “knowingly mak[ing] any false statement” on loan documents. The justices unanimously agreed that a statement can be misleading yet still be true, and the law only reaches statements that are actually false.

Because of that narrow reading, the Court sent the case back to the lower court to decide whether Thompson’s statements were outright lies or just clever ways to spin the facts.

Summary of the Case

Patrick Thompson borrowed three sums from Washington Federal Bank. $110,000 in 2011, $20,000 in 2013 and $89,000 in 2014 — totaling $219,000. When the bank failed in 2017, the FDIC, as receiver, sought repayment. During two debt-collection calls, Thompson disputed an invoice showing a $269,120.58 balance, telling FDIC contractors that he “had no idea where the 269 number comes from” and that he “borrowed . . . $110,000”. The Government indicted him under 18 U.S.C. § 1014 for “knowingly mak[ing] any false statement” to influence the FDIC’s handling of a loan. A jury convicted, and Thompson moved for acquittal, arguing his statements were literally true. He had in fact borrowed $110,000, albeit misleading by omitting subsequent borrowings. Both the District Court and the Seventh Circuit held that § 1014 also covers misleading statements, affirmed the convictions, and rejected the claim of literal truth. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether § 1014 reaches misleading but true statements.

Opinion of the Court

Chief Justice Roberts, for a unanimous Court, held that § 1014’s reference to “false statement[s]” does not encompass statements that are merely misleading. First, the statute’s text uses only the adjective “false,” which unambiguously means “not true,” and omits the word “misleading”. A misleading statement can be true, and a true statement is not false; “any false statement” does not expand the category to include all misleading statements. Second, context confirms this narrow reading: other federal criminal and regulatory provisions in Title 18 expressly prohibit “false or misleading” statements, so interpreting § 1014 to cover all misleading statements would render that language superfluous. Third, precedent is in accord: in United States v. Wells, the Court declined to graft a materiality requirement into § 1014 because Congress omitted it; similarly, Williams v. United States, held that a check cannot be a “false statement” at all. Kay v. United States does not aid the Government, as its references to “misleading” describe intent, not substantive scope. Finally, the Court recognized that context is relevant to determining whether a given statement is false, and remanded for the Seventh Circuit to assess whether a reasonable jury could find Thompson’s statements false in their factual setting.

Separate Opinions

Justice Alito concurred to emphasize five key takeaways: (1) § 1014 reaches only untrue statements; (2) “false” bears its ordinary meaning of “not true”; (3) falsity must be assessed in context; (4) overlap between “false” and “misleading” does not require reference to “misleading” in jury instructions; and (5) on remand, the Seventh Circuit should apply the Jackson v. Virginia sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard. Justice Jackson also concurred, noting that because the jury was correctly instructed to find only false statements, the Seventh Circuit should simply affirm the verdict if a rational factfinder could find falsity.

False Vs. Misleading

When Congress recodified the federal criminal statutes in 1948, it consolidated eleven predecessor provisions into § 1014—all penalizing “false statements” without mentioning “misleading.” By contrast, contemporaneous statutes that targeted misleading or deceptive conduct patently used the phrase “false or misleading”. The omission of “misleading” in § 1014 is thus deliberate, not inadvertent. Further, adding “any” before “false statement” broadens only within the class of untrue statements, not to encompass true but misleading assertions. Precedents like Wells, declining to import materiality, and Williams, limiting § 1014 to assertions analyzable as true or false, reinforce that § 1014’s ambit is confined to statements that can legitimately be called false. Although contextual nuance informs whether particular words are untrue, the statute itself turns solely on falsity, not misleadingness.

You've heard this case in the news and all over social media. Trump v. United States dissects the complexities of legal protections for former presidents. This case forges new law for immunity from criminal presection for actions taken while they were in office. So long as the president is acting within their official duties, they have a defined curtain of protection from being charged with a crime. This case is complex and riddled with important detail. Stay tuned as we dig in to the facts of this case and the implications for future U.S. presidents.

The Court made it clear that this immunity is absolute for actions that fall under the president's exclusive constitutional powers. For other official acts, there is at least a presumption of immunity. However, if a president engages in unofficial actions, they do not enjoy this protection. The case has now been sent back to lower courts to figure out the specifics of the conduct mentioned in the indictment.

This decision has sparked a lot of discussion, especially with dissenting opinions from some justices who believe that this level of immunity could set a concerning precedent. As we continue to follow this case, it raises important questions about accountability and the limits of presidential power.

Summary of the Case

The case of Trump v. United States arose from a federal grand jury indictment against former President Donald J. Trump, who faced four counts related to actions taken during his presidency following the November 2020 election. The indictment alleged that Trump conspired to overturn the election results by spreading false claims of election fraud, thereby obstructing the collection, counting, and certification of the election results. Trump sought to dismiss the indictment, claiming absolute presidential immunity for actions taken within the scope of his official duties. The District Court and the D.C. Circuit Court both denied this motion, leading to the Supreme Court's review of the extent of presidential immunity from criminal prosecution.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court held that a former President is entitled to some degree of immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within the scope of his official duties. The Court established that while a President has absolute immunity for conduct that falls within his exclusive constitutional authority, he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity for other official acts. The Court emphasized that not all presidential actions are immune; unofficial acts do not enjoy such protection. The Court remanded the case to the District Court to determine which specific actions alleged in the indictment were official or unofficial, thus requiring a careful analysis of the conduct in question. The ruling underscored the importance of maintaining the separation of powers and the need for the President to perform his duties without the fear of criminal prosecution for official acts.

Separate Opinions

Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, emphasizing the dangers of criminally prosecuting a former President for official acts and suggesting that the Constitution does not permit such a course. He raised concerns about the legitimacy of the Special Counsel's appointment, questioning whether it was established by law as required by the Constitution.

Justice Barrett also concurred in part but did not join the section of the Court's opinion regarding the evidentiary treatment of official acts. She argued that the President should be able to challenge the constitutionality of criminal statutes as applied to official acts and that the Court should have addressed this issue directly.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented, arguing that the majority's decision effectively grants former Presidents immunity from criminal prosecution for their official acts, undermining the principle that no one is above the law. She contended that the majority's expansive interpretation of presidential immunity is unprecedented and dangerous, allowing for potential abuses of power without accountability.

Justice Jackson also dissented, echoing Sotomayor's concerns and emphasizing that the majority's ruling alters the accountability paradigm for Presidents, creating a new model that permits them to evade criminal liability for actions taken while in office. He criticized the majority for failing to provide clear standards for distinguishing between official and unofficial conduct, which could lead to significant legal ambiguities.

Presidential Immunity and Official Acts

The ruling in Trump v. United States highlights the complex interplay between presidential powers and accountability under the Constitution. The Court's decision reflects a nuanced understanding of the separation of powers, recognizing that while the President must be able to perform his duties without undue interference, this does not grant him carte blanche to act unlawfully. The distinction between official and unofficial acts is critical; while the President enjoys immunity for actions taken in the course of his official duties, this immunity does not extend to conduct that is deemed unofficial or outside the scope of his constitutional authority. The Court's approach necessitates a careful, fact-specific analysis of the actions in question, balancing the need for executive independence with the imperative of accountability under the law. This case sets a significant precedent regarding the limits of presidential immunity and the conditions under which a former President may be held accountable for actions taken while in office.

---

Podcast audio provided by:

RescopicSound

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM

A fresh perspective on how courts interact with government agencies is at the fore in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. The Supreme Court decided to overrule the Chevron doctrine, which previously allowed courts to defer to agency interpretations when laws were unclear. Instead, the Court emphasized that judges should use their own judgment to determine if an agency is acting within its legal boundaries.

This decision, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, signals a shift in how legal ambiguities will be handled in the future. The majority opinion was supported by several justices, including Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett. However, there was a dissenting opinion from Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who expressed concerns about this new approach.

In essence, this ruling means that courts will no longer automatically side with agency interpretations just because a law is vague. Instead, they will take a closer look at whether the agency is truly following the law as it was intended. This could have significant implications for how laws are enforced and interpreted across various government agencies.

Summary of the Case

The case of Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo arose from challenges to a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Petitioners, who are operators in the Atlantic herring fishery, contested the legality of a rule requiring them to pay for observer services mandated by the NMFS. They argued that the Magnuson-Stevens Act did not authorize such a requirement. The case was brought before the Supreme Court to determine whether the Chevron deference doctrine, which requires courts to defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, should be overruled or clarified.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, overruled the Chevron doctrine, asserting that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) mandates that courts exercise independent judgment in determining whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority. The Court emphasized that courts should not defer to agency interpretations simply because a statute is ambiguous. The opinion traced the historical context of judicial interpretation, asserting that the judiciary has the ultimate responsibility to interpret laws, a role that should not be abdicated to executive agencies. The Court concluded that Chevron's requirement for deference was inconsistent with the APA's directive that courts decide all relevant questions of law.

Separate Opinions

Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch filed concurring opinions. Justice Thomas emphasized that Chevron deference violates the Constitution's separation of powers by allowing agencies to exercise judicial power. Justice Gorsuch focused on the historical context of judicial interpretation and the need for courts to maintain their role in statutory interpretation without deferring to agencies.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented. The dissent argued that Chevron has been a cornerstone of administrative law for decades, providing a framework for courts and agencies to operate effectively. Kagan contended that the majority's decision undermines the expertise of agencies in regulatory matters and shifts power from agencies to courts, which may not have the same level of expertise. The dissent also emphasized the importance of stare decisis, arguing that the majority failed to provide a compelling justification for overruling a long-standing precedent.

Administrative Law and the Chevron Doctrine

The ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises reflects a significant shift in administrative law, particularly regarding the relationship between courts and agencies. The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, allowed agencies to interpret ambiguous statutes within their jurisdiction, with courts deferring to those interpretations if deemed reasonable. The Supreme Court's decision to overrule Chevron underscores a belief that the APA requires courts to engage in independent statutory interpretation, thereby reinforcing the judiciary's role in the separation of powers. This change raises questions about the future of agency authority and the balance of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, as well as the implications for regulatory practices across various sectors. The Court's emphasis on the historical role of courts in interpreting laws suggests a return to a more traditional understanding of judicial authority, potentially complicating the regulatory landscape and the relationship between agencies and the courts.

---

Podcast audio provided by:

RescopicSound

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM

A Supreme Court ruling that's igniting debates across the nation is at the heart of United States v Rahimi. The case asks a powder keg question: Can the government step in to restrict gun ownership when someone is deemed a threat? This case isn't just about legal technicalities - it's about the tug-of-war between personal freedoms and public safety. As we unpack this decision, you'll see how the highest court in the land is reshaping the landscape of gun rights.

The justices decided that it is indeed permissible to disarm such individuals, aligning this decision with the Second Amendment. Specifically, they upheld a law that stops people under certain domestic violence restraining orders from having guns. This ruling emphasizes that the right to bear arms can be balanced with the need to protect individuals from potential harm.

Chief Justice John Roberts led the majority opinion, which was supported by several other justices. However, Justice Clarence Thomas disagreed with the ruling, highlighting the ongoing debate about gun rights in America.

This case illustrates the delicate balance between individual rights and public safety, a topic that continues to spark discussions across the nation.

Summary of the Case

The case of United States v. Rahimi arose from the indictment of Zackey Rahimi under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), which prohibits individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. Rahimi acknowledged that the restraining order against him met the statutory criteria but contended that the statute itself violated the Second Amendment. The District Court denied his motion to dismiss the indictment, but the Fifth Circuit reversed this decision, asserting that the government failed to demonstrate that §922(g)(8) aligned with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the United States. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the constitutional question.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, held that individuals found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others may be temporarily disarmed under the Second Amendment. The Court emphasized that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamental but not unlimited. It noted that historical firearm laws have included regulations preventing individuals who threaten physical harm from misusing firearms. The Court found that §922(g)(8) fits within this historical tradition, as it applies only to individuals who have been judicially determined to pose a credible threat. The Court rejected the Fifth Circuit's interpretation that required a "historical twin" for modern regulations, asserting that a "historical analogue" suffices. The Court concluded that §922(g)(8) is constitutional as applied to Rahimi's case.

Separate Opinions

Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, expressing her belief that while she disagreed with the Bruen decision, she supported the application of its precedent in this case. She emphasized that the regulation must align with the principles underlying the Second Amendment but need not have a precise historical match. Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Jackson also filed concurring opinions, each reinforcing the majority's reasoning and the importance of historical context in Second Amendment cases.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Thomas dissented, arguing that §922(g)(8) is unconstitutional because it does not have a historical analogue that justifies its broad prohibition on firearm possession. He contended that the statute imposes a more severe burden than historical laws, such as surety laws, which did not strip individuals of their right to keep and bear arms. Thomas maintained that the government failed to demonstrate that §922(g)(8) is consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects all members of the political community, not just those deemed "responsible."

Domestic Violence, Invidividual Rights and the Second Amendment

The law in question, §922(g)(8), reflects a balance between individual rights and public safety, particularly in the context of domestic violence. The Supreme Court's interpretation underscores that while the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, this right is not absolute and can be regulated in specific circumstances, particularly when an individual poses a credible threat to others. The Court's reliance on historical analogues rather than requiring exact matches allows for a more flexible application of the Second Amendment in contemporary contexts. This case illustrates the ongoing tension between the right to bear arms and the need for regulations aimed at preventing violence, particularly in domestic situations. The dissent highlights concerns about due process and the potential for overreach in disarming individuals without a criminal conviction, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny of laws that infringe upon constitutional rights.

This is a Supreme Court decision that's sending shockwaves through courtrooms nationwide. It's a ruling that puts expert witnesses under the microscope and challenges the very foundations of how evidence is presented in trials. At its core, this case asks: When does secondhand information cross the line in expert testimony? The Court's answer could revolutionize legal proceedings and shake up the balance between efficient trials and defendants' rights. Stick with us as we break down this game-changing decision that's redefining the rules of the courtroom. You'll want to hear every detail of this legal bombshell.

The Court sent the case back to a lower court to figure out if the statements in question were indeed testimonial. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the majority opinion, and she was joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Jackson, Thomas, and Gorsuch. However, Justice Samuel Alito dissented, with Chief Justice Roberts joining him.

This case highlights the delicate balance between expert testimony and the rights of individuals in the courtroom.

Summary of the Case

The case of Smith v. Arizona arose from the conviction of Jason Smith for drug offenses, where the prosecution relied on the testimony of a substitute forensic analyst, Greggory Longoni, who presented the findings of an absent analyst, Elizabeth Rast. Rast had conducted the forensic tests on the seized substances but was unavailable to testify at trial. Smith contended that his rights under the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause were violated because he could not cross-examine Rast regarding her findings. The Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the conviction, asserting that Longoni's testimony was permissible as it was based on his independent opinion rather than Rast's statements being offered for their truth.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a decision delivered by Justice Kagan, vacated the Arizona Court of Appeals' judgment. The Court held that when an expert witness conveys the statements of an absent analyst to support their opinion, those statements are considered to be offered for their truth if they support the opinion only if true. The Court emphasized that the Confrontation Clause prohibits the admission of testimonial statements from absent witnesses unless the witness is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine them. The Court concluded that Rast's statements were indeed presented for their truth, thus violating Smith's Confrontation Clause rights. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether Rast's statements were testimonial.

Separate Opinions

Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch filed concurring opinions, agreeing with the Court's conclusion but expressing reservations about the Court's approach to determining whether Rast's statements were testimonial. They concurred in the judgment but did not endorse the Court's suggestion to analyze the "primary purpose" of the statements.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts, concurred in the judgment but criticized the majority for undermining modern evidence law. Alito argued that the Court's ruling unnecessarily complicates the admissibility of expert testimony and that the existing Federal Rules of Evidence adequately address the issues at hand without infringing on the Confrontation Clause.

Confrontation Rights

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant's right to confront witnesses against them, which has been interpreted to apply to testimonial hearsay. The Court's decision in Smith v. Arizona clarifies that expert testimony based on the statements of absent analysts must be scrutinized to determine whether those statements are offered for their truth. This ruling builds on previous cases like Crawford v. Washington and Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, which established that testimonial statements cannot be admitted without the opportunity for cross-examination. The Court's analysis underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the confrontation right, particularly in the context of forensic evidence, while also navigating the complexities of expert testimony in modern legal proceedings.

The Supreme Court addressed a matter involving the complexities of law and the rights of Native American tribes. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, often referred to as ISDA is important because it allows tribes to take control of their health services and programs.

In this case, the Court ruled that the Indian Health Service, or IHS, must cover the costs that tribes incur when they manage their own programs and generate income from them. This means that when a tribe collects money to support its health services, the IHS is required to help pay for the costs associated with that income.

The decision was led by Chief Justice John Roberts, with support from Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, and Jackson. However, there was a dissenting opinion from Justice Kavanaugh, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett, who disagreed with the majority's interpretation.

This ruling is significant for tribes as it reinforces their ability to manage their own health services while ensuring they receive the necessary financial support to do so effectively. It’s a step towards greater self-determination and empowerment for Native American communities.

Summary of the Case

The case of Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe arose from disputes between the Indian Health Service (IHS) and two tribes—the San Carlos Apache Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe—regarding the reimbursement of contract support costs under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDA). The tribes contended that IHS failed to pay them for contract support costs incurred while administering healthcare programs funded by third-party payments (e.g., Medicare and Medicaid) as part of their self-determination contracts. The Ninth and Tenth Circuits ruled in favor of the tribes, asserting that ISDA required IHS to reimburse these costs.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court, in a majority opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that ISDA mandates IHS to pay contract support costs incurred by tribes when they collect and spend program income to further the healthcare programs transferred to them. The Court reasoned that the statutory provisions of ISDA, particularly Sections 5325(a)(2) and 5325(a)(3)(A), clearly define contract support costs as those necessary for compliance with the terms of self-determination contracts. The Court emphasized that these costs are directly attributable to the contracts and are essential for the tribes to effectively administer the healthcare programs. The ruling aimed to prevent a funding gap that would penalize tribes for opting for self-determination.

Separate Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, and Barrett. Kavanaugh's dissent argued that the majority's interpretation of ISDA was inconsistent with the statute's text and the long-standing executive interpretation that required tribes to cover overhead costs from their third-party income. He contended that the federal government should not be obligated to provide additional funding for costs associated with spending third-party income, as this could lead to significant financial implications for federal appropriations.

Dissenting Opinions

Justice Kavanaugh's dissent highlighted several key points: 1. The statutory language of ISDA does not explicitly authorize funding for costs incurred from spending third-party income. 2. Section 5326 restricts contract support funding to costs directly attributable to self-determination contracts, which does not include third-party income expenditures. 3. The dissent expressed concern that the majority's ruling could divert funds from poorer tribes to those that administer their own healthcare programs, potentially exacerbating inequities in federal funding for Indian healthcare.

ISDA and Tribal Self-Determination

The ISDA was designed to promote tribal self-determination in administering healthcare programs, allowing tribes to enter contracts with IHS to manage these services. The law stipulates that IHS must provide a "Secretarial amount" and contract support costs to cover administrative expenses. However, the interpretation of what constitutes reimbursable contract support costs has been contentious, particularly regarding the treatment of third-party income. The majority opinion clarified that costs incurred while using program income to fulfill contract obligations are indeed reimbursable, while the dissent cautioned against expanding the scope of federal funding obligations without explicit statutory support. This case underscores the complexities of federal-tribal relations and the balance between self-determination and federal oversight in funding tribal healthcare.

---

Podcast audio provided by:

RescopicSound

"Catch Me If You Can" by OCFM

The Supreme Court addressed an important issue regarding transportation workers and their rights under the law. The case, known as Bissonnette et al. v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC, was decided on April 12, 2024.

The Court made it clear that a transportation worker does not have to be employed directly in the transportation industry to be exempt from certain legal requirements under the Federal Arbitration Act. This means that even if someone works in a different field, like a bakery, they can still be considered a transportation worker for legal purposes. The Supreme Court overturned a previous decision made by the Second Circuit, which had incorrectly classified the workers as being part of the bakery industry instead of the transportation sector.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion, and the ruling was supported by several other justices. This decision is significant because it broadens the definition of who qualifies as a transportation worker, ensuring that more individuals can benefit from protections under the law. The case has now been sent back for further proceedings, which means there will be more developments to follow.

This ruling highlights the ongoing conversation about workers' rights and the importance of understanding how different industries intersect.

Summary of the Case

The case of Bissonnette et al. v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC arose when petitioners Neal Bissonnette and Tyler Wojnarowski, who were distributors for Flowers Foods, Inc., sued the company for violations of state and federal wage laws. They contended that they were exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) due to a provision in § 1 that excludes “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” The District Court ruled in favor of Flowers, determining that the petitioners did not qualify as “transportation workers” exempt from the FAA. The Second Circuit affirmed this decision, asserting that the exemption applied only to workers in the transportation industry, which the petitioners did not belong to.

Opinion of the Court

The Supreme Court held that a transportation worker does not need to be employed in the transportation industry to qualify for the exemption under § 1 of the FAA. The Court emphasized that the focus should be on the nature of the work performed by the employee rather than the industry of the employer. The Court applied the ejusdem generis canon of statutory interpretation, which limits the general term “class of workers engaged in... commerce” to those who share common attributes with the specific categories of “seamen” and “railroad employees.” The Court found that the Second Circuit's requirement for an industry-specific classification was unfounded and could lead to unnecessary complexity and litigation. The judgment of the Second Circuit was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Dissenting Opinions

There were no dissenting opinions in this case, as the decision was unanimous.

Worker's Classifications

The nuance in this case revolves around the interpretation of the FAA's § 1 exemption. The Court clarified that the exemption is not limited to workers in the transportation industry but applies to any worker who plays a direct and necessary role in the transportation of goods across state lines. This interpretation aligns with previous rulings, such as in Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams and Southwest Airlines Co. v. Saxon, which emphasized the importance of the nature of the work performed rather than the industry context. The Court rejected the notion that the exemption could be construed too broadly, asserting that a transportation worker must be actively engaged in the movement of goods in interstate commerce. This ruling aims to maintain the FAA's purpose of reducing litigation over arbitration agreements while ensuring that the exemption is applied in a manner consistent with the statute's intent.