The United States Supreme Court has issued six new opinions.
In Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, the court dismissed certiorari as improvidently granted.
Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1775_4425.pdf
In George v. McDonough, the court held that the invalidation of a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation after a veteran’s benefits decision becomes final cannot support a claim for collateral relief permitting revision of that decision based on “clear and unmistakable error” under 38 U. S. C. §§5109A and 7111.
Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-234_2b8e.pdf
In American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra, the court held that the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 does not preclude judicial review of the reimbursement rates set by the Department of Health and Human Services for certain outpatient prescription drugs that hospitals provide to Medicare patients; in this case, because HHS did not conduct a survey of hospitals’ acquisition costs in 2018 and 2019, its decision to vary reimbursement rates only for 340B hospitals in those years was unlawful.
Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf
In Ysleta del Sur Pueblo v. Texas, the court held that the federal legislation at issue—the Ysleta del Sur and Alabama and Coushatta Indian Tribes of Texas Restoration Act—bans as a matter of federal law on tribal lands only those gaming activities also banned in Texas.
Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-493_jgko.pdf
In Golan v. Saada, the court held that a court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm.
Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1034_b8dg.pdf
In Viking River Cruises, Inc. v. Moriana, the court held that the Federal Arbitration Act preempts a rule of California law that invalidates contractual waivers of the right to assert representative claims under “PAGA”—California’s Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004—insofar as that rule precludes division of PAGA actions into individual and non-individual claims through an agreement to arbitrate.
Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1573_8p6h.pdf