WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an order list, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30 granted a petition for review of a Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) withdrawal liability decision that the federal government filed an amicus curiae brief urging it to grant — but did not reformulate the question presented as the government suggested.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the federal government urged in a requested amicus curiae brief, the U.S. Supreme Court in a June 30 order list declined to review a ruling that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and Medicare Part D partially preempt an Oklahoma pharmaceutical benefit manager (PBM) law.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 in a 6-3 ruling held that a Texas law requiring the operators of pornographic websites to verify that their visitors are adults does not violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a 6-3 reversal concerning the structure of a task force that issues preventive care recommendations, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 ruled that “members are inferior officers whose appointment by the Secretary of HHS [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] is permissible under the Appointments Clause” of the U.S. Constitution.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The U.S. Supreme Court on June 27 ruled 6-3 that a Federal Communications Commission subsidy program does not violate the doctrines of nondelegation or  “private nondelegation,” finding that the FCC’s delegations were properly guided by an “intelligible principle” set forth by Congress and reversing the en banc Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Nationwide or universal injunctions “likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has granted to federal courts,” a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court ruled June 27, partially staying nationwide injunctions issued in three cases challenging President Donald J. Trump’s Jan. 20 birthright citizenship executive order (EO),

LOS ANGELES — A California judge granted an insured’s motion for summary adjudication as to his declaratory relief claim in a lawsuit alleging that the California Fair Plan Association (CFP) issued property insurance policies with fire coverage that is unlawfully restrictive as to smoke damage claims but denied the insured’s motion as to his unfair competition law (UCL) claim, finding that he failed to satisfy his burden to establish standing to bring the UCL claim.

SAN DIEGO — A California federal judge on June 25 granted an auto insurer’s motion for summary judgment on a claim alleging that the insurer breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by not sufficiently refunding policyholders a percentage of premium payments made during the COVID-19 pandemic because the insurer was not contractually bound to refund any premiums under its auto policies.