Latest news with #DormantCommerceClause
Malaysian Reserve
6 days ago
- Business
- Malaysian Reserve
Second Circuit Clears Path for Gun Violence Victims and New York Communities to Pursue Civil Accountability, reports Napoli Shkolnik
NEW YORK, July 10, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — In a decision with sweeping implications for gun violence litigation across New York State, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit today upheld the constitutionality of New York's gun industry public nuisance statute, affirming the right of victims and cities to seek justice through the courts. The ruling in National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. et al v. James, 22-1374-cv, rejected the firearms industry's challenge to General Business Law § 898-a-e, which allowed lawsuits against manufacturers and sellers of firearms that knowingly or recklessly contribute to public harm. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the industry's facial challenge to the law, holding that it is not preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, and is not unconstitutionally vague. Further, the Court held that the statute does not unlawfully regulate conduct beyond New York's borders. Plaintiffs may now pursue claims against industry actors whose actions knowingly contributed to the gun violence crisis in New York. Napoli Shkolnik, which represents the Cities of Buffalo and Rochester, New York in actions previously stayed due to this litigation, applauded the ruling. 'This decision restores a critical legal remedy for communities and individuals harmed by irresponsible and unlawful firearms business practices,' shares Partner Paul Napoli. 'Our clients now have a clear path to proceed and hold these companies fully accountable in a court of law.' With the federal appellate court confirming that New York's statute falls squarely within the PLCAA's 'predicate exception,' cases previously placed on hold—including actions brought by cities across the state—can now proceed. The law requires gun industry members who do business in New York to implement 'reasonable controls' to prevent unlawful marketing and distribution of firearms. 'This issue does not concern lawful gun ownership — it concerns the firearms industry's duty to refrain from flooding the market and to ensure it does not turn a blind eye to diversion and illegal sales,' adds Partner Hunter Shkolnik. Napoli Shkolnik is preparing to re-engage several cases in light of this decision and encourages other jurisdictions or affected individuals to reach out for a legal consultation. About Napoli Shkolnik Napoli Shkolnik is a national law firm with a proven record of success in complex commercial litigation, including cases addressing public nuisances and their impact on communities. With a dedicated team of attorneys, the firm delivers exceptional legal representation and fights for justice on behalf of those harmed by large corporations. Website:
Yahoo
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Florida attorney general asks Supreme Court to pave way for new immigration law
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R) asked the Supreme Court on Monday to allow the state to enforce its new immigration law as an appeal plays out in a lower court. The new law, S.B. 4-C, makes it a state crime for people to enter Florida after arriving in the U.S. illegally and evading immigration authorities. 'Illegal immigration continues to wreak havoc in the State while that law cannot be enforced,' Uthmeier's office wrote in the application. 'And without this Court's intervention, Florida and its citizens will remain disabled from combatting the serious harms of illegal immigration for years as this litigation proceeds through the lower courts,' it continued. Two anonymous people living in Florida illegally, the Florida Immigrant Coalition, and the Farmworker Association of Florida, sued over the law. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, an appointee of former President Obama, blocked police from enforcing it indefinitely, agreeing the statute is likely preempted by federal immigration law and unconstitutional. Florida's efforts at the Supreme Court come after a three-judge panel on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift the block as the state's appeal moves forward. The state argued its law is tailored to avoid any conflict with federal immigration authorities. 'Nothing in SB 4-C poses a conflict with federal law. Just the opposite, Florida's law scrupulously tracks federal law. SB 4-C similarly does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, since it is un-related to economic protectionism,' Uthmeier's office wrote in court filings. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, declined to comment. Last year, the Supreme Court allowed a Texas law to take effect that makes it a state crime to illegally cross the Mexican border into the state, refusing the Biden administration's request for an emergency order blocking it on preemption grounds. Florida's request adds to what is already a jam-packed emergency docket at the Supreme Court. The justices are mulling six pending emergency applications from the Trump administration. Three ask to partially enforce the president's birthright citizenship executive order, while the others deal with his deportation policies and efforts to reshape various federal departments. Two death row inmates set to be executed in Florida and Mississippi this week have also asked the court for emergency interventions. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
23-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Florida AG asks Supreme Court to pave way for new immigration law
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier (R) asked the Supreme Court on Monday to allow the state to enforce its new immigration law as an appeal plays out in a lower court. The new law, SB 4-C, makes it a state crime for people to enter Florida after arriving in the U.S. illegally and evading immigration authorities. 'Illegal immigration continues to wreak havoc in the State while that law cannot be enforced,' Uthmeier's office wrote in the application. 'And without this Court's intervention, Florida and its citizens will remain disabled from combatting the serious harms of illegal immigration for years as this litigation proceeds through the lower courts,' it continued. Two anonymous individuals living in Florida illegally, the Florida Immigrant Coalition and the Farmworker Association of Florida, sued over the law. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, an appointee of former President Obama, blocked police from enforcing it indefinitely, agreeing the statute is likely preempted by federal immigration law and unconstitutional. Florida's efforts at the Supreme Court come after a three-judge panel on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to lift the block as the state's appeal moves forward. The state argues its law is tailored to avoid any conflict with federal immigration authorities. 'Nothing in SB 4-C poses a conflict with federal law. Just the opposite, Florida's law scrupulously tracks federal law. SB 4-C similarly does not violate the Dormant Commerce Clause, since it is un-related to economic protectionism,' Uthmeier's office wrote in court filings. The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, declined to comment. Last year, the Supreme Court allowed a Texas law to take effect that makes it a state crime to illegally cross the Mexican border into the state, refusing the Biden administration's request for an emergency order blocking it on preemption grounds. Florida's request adds to what is already a jam-packed emergency docket at the Supreme Court. The justices are mulling six pending emergency applications from the Trump administration. Three ask to partially enforce the president's birthright citizenship executive order, while the others deal with his deportation policies and efforts to reshape various federal departments. Two death row inmates set to be executed in Florida and Mississippi this week have also asked the court for emergency interventions.
Axios
03-06-2025
- Business
- Axios
PBMs fight back against state restrictions
Drug price middlemen are going to court to fight a first-in-the-nation effort to police their ownership of retail pharmacies as more state legislatures and Congress crank up scrutiny of their influence on the cost of medicines. Why it matters: Large pharmacy benefit managers like CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and Optum Rx are increasingly being blamed for higher drug prices and the outsize role they play in the pharmaceutical supply chain. But major changes could be slow to materialize because of the complex system and the pivotal role the middlemen play negotiating drug purchases for commercial health plans and employers. State of play: CVS Health and Cigna, which owns Express Scripts, filed lawsuits last week seeking to stop Arkansas from enforcing a new law that largely prohibits them from owning retail pharmacies in the state. Both lawsuits argue that the Arkansas policy violates the Constitution's Dormant Commerce Clause. CVS Health argues that the law improperly leverages the state's licensing power. CVS Health says it will have to close 23 pharmacies in Arkansas under the law, which is effective Jan. 1, 2026. Cigna, which owns mail-order pharmacies operating in the state, says the law will harm the 50,000 Arkansas residents it serves. But the ramifications are nationwide, with many other states weighing new restrictions, including prohibitions on steering business to affiliated pharmacies. Texas and New York have introduced bills similar to Arkansas'. Other states are also getting aggressive: Alabama in March passed a law requiring PBMs to reimburse independent pharmacies at rates at least as high as Medicaid. The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, a PBM trade group, says such laws would hurt seniors and veterans using prescription drug home delivery and patients with complex medical conditions who rely on specialty pharmacies for their treatments. The other side: The PBMs are only fighting Arkansas in the courts because they're worried other states will follow the lead of Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) in trying to secure patient access and affordable prescriptions, Sanders' spokesman Sam Dubke wrote in an email. Between the lines: PBMs play a pivotal role in the drug supply chain and have benefited from consolidation and vertical integration, allowing some companies to steer business to affiliated pharmacies or push contracts on independent pharmacies. The Federal Trade Commission during the Biden administration blamed CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and OptumRx for hiking the cost of drugs, including overcharging patients for cancer treatments. The Trump administration, which has said it wants to "cut out" drug middlemen," halted an FTC lawsuit against the companies in April. Flashback: This isn't the first time PBMs have clashed with Arkansas in the courts. And the U.S. Supreme Court in 2020 unanimously ruled in the state's favor, deciding in favor of a law that forced PBMs to reimburse pharmacies at least what they pay in drug acquisition costs. The PCMA had brought the lawsuit, arguing that the policy preempted federal laws governing private health plans. Every state has passed some kind of legislation to regulate PBMs, per the National Academy for State Health Policy. What to watch: The massive Republican budget bill moving through Congress also includes narrow PBM changes, including moving to flat-fee payment for services in Medicare Part D and prohibiting PBMs from charging Medicaid managed care insurers more for a drug than the price they pay a pharmacy for dispensing it. Reality check: PBMs are adept at shifting their business models to keep up with the changing health care landscape, and likely won't see that much impact to their operations if legislative proposals moving through Congress pass, financial services firm TD Cowen wrote in a report released Monday.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
CVS and Express Scripts sued to block a new law restricting drug middlemen
CVS and Cigna-owned Express Scripts filed lawsuits Thursday to block an Arkansas law that tries to curb the power of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) in the state. PBMs, also known as drug middlemen, are third-party administrators of prescription drug plans for health insurers. They negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over how much a health plan will pay for a drug and set the out-of-pocket costs for patients. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed a law last month that banned PBMs from owning and operating pharmacies in the state, saying at the time that they 'have taken advantage of lax regulations to abuse customers.' The legislation came following two reports from the Federal Trade Commission and the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability last year that accused PBMs of reaping massive profits by pushing patients to pay for more expensive drugs, including life-saving cancer medicine. Supporters of the Arkansas law, which goes into effect in January, claimed it would also greatly help independent pharmacies, which can't compete with PBM-owned chains like CVS. In its lawsuit Thursday, CVS said the legislation will force it to close 23 pharmacies in the state, eliminating hundreds of jobs, and claimed the ban would 'drive-up costs for Arkansans.' CVS, which declined to further comment, said in their press release that the law violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, a part of the Constitution that restricts states from discriminating against or unfairly burdening out-of-state businesses. It also said the law violates the company's Equal Protection rights. Susan Peppers, vice president of pharmacy practice for Evernorth Health Services, which runs Express Scripts and is owned by Cigna, said in a press release that 'if this law takes effect in January, hundreds of thousands of Arkansans will be left scrambling to navigate the forced closure of pharmacies and finding new ways to get their medicines and critical clinical support.' While advocates say the law will help rural Arkansans whose local pharmacies can't stay afloat, Express Scripts is claiming the opposite. The law 'could be especially challenging for the more than 40% of Arkansans that live in a rural area and may not have easy access to a retail pharmacy,' it said. In a statement to Quartz, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin defended the legislation. 'Pharmacy benefit managers wield outsized power to reap massive profits at the expense of consumers,' he said. 'Through Act 624, Arkansas is standing up to PBMs on behalf of consumers, and I will vigorously defend our law.' For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
