http://www.oyez.org/issues/civil-rights/poverty-law-statutory/ U.S. Supreme Court Decisions, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org) en-us <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_874/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_93_1883/ <p>Do federal Medicaid statutes limit the amount a state can recover in reimbursement from a third-party payment to the portion earmarked for medical treatment?</p><p>Yes. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court ruled that federal Medicaid statutes only allow a state to recover the part of a third-party settlement earmarked for medical expenses. The Justices agreed with the Circuit Court that the statutes do not permit Arkansas to require Ahlborn to repay Medicare expenses from the non-medical portions of the settlement. The Court found Arkansas's arguments to the contrary unconvincing due to "internal inconsistency with a conscious disregard for the statutory text."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2005/2005_04_1506/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_632/ <p>Is the assignment of beneficiaries, under Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992, valid if the assignment was made after the Act's October 1, 1993 deadline?</p><p>Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice David H. Souter, the Court held that the Commissioner's initial assignments made after October 1, 1993, are valid despite their untimeliness. The Court reasoned that a statute directing official action needed more than a mandatory "shall" before the grant of power would be read to expire when the job was supposed to be completed. Moreover, Justice Souter noted that the Act was designed to assign the greatest number of beneficiaries and read the statutory date as a spur to prompt action. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, in which Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Thomas also filed a separate dissenting opinion. Both read the Act has establishing a clear deadline for the expiration of the Commissioner's authority.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2002/2002_01_705/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_1181/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_5303/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1409/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_1708/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_1511/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1970/1970_507/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_250/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1992/1992_92_551/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_2136/ <p>Does the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, allow local public housing agencies to evict tenants for drug-related activity of non-tenant relatives or guests regardless of whether tenants knew, or should have known, about the activity?</p><p>Yes. In an 8-0 opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 unambiguously requires lease terms that vest local public housing authorities with the discretion to evict tenants for the drug-related activity of household members and guests whether or not the tenant knew, or should have known, about the activity. Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote, "Congress' decision not to impose any qualification in the statute, combined with its use of the term 'any' to modify 'drug-related criminal activity,' precludes any knowledge requirement." The Chief Justice also noted that it was reasonable for Congress to permit no-fault evictions in order to provide public housing that was decent, safe, and free from illegal drugs. Justice Stephen G. Breyer did not participate in the case.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2001/2001_00_1770/ <p>Do Medicare funds received by health care providers constitute "benefits" within the meaning of the federal bribery statute prohibiting fraud and other offenses against organizations receiving federal benefits?</p><p>Yes. In a 7-2 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that "Health care providers such as the one defrauded by [Fischer] receive 'benefits' within the meaning of [the federal bribery statute]." Thus, the Medicare funds hospitals receive for treating Medicare patients subject people who bribe hospital officials to federal prosecution. "The government has a legitimate and significant interest in prohibiting financial fraud or acts of bribery being perpetrated upon Medicare providers," Justice Kennedy wrote for the court. "Fraudulent acts threaten the program's integrity. They raise the risk participating organizations will lack the resources...to provide the level and quality of care envisioned by the program." Justice Clarence Thomas, in a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, argued that "[t]he only persons who receive 'benefits' under Medicare are the individual elderly and disabled Medicare patients, not the medical providers who serve them."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_116/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1987/1987_86_978/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_6476/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_1983/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_83_56/ <p>Does the judiciary's imposition of deadlines by which disability claims must be processed constitute an unconstitutional interference with a legislatively mandated statute?</p><p>Yes. In a 5-to-4 opinion, the Court held that Congress already considered and expressly rejected the imposition of mandatory disability dispute-resolution deadlines. Such deadlines, according to congressional reports, would subordinate quality of service to timeliness. The Court cautioned that pervasively regulated areas, such as the Social Security Act in general and its dispute resolution mechanisms in particular, should be left free of judicial intervention that is far less attuned to the needs of the constituencies served by such legislation.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1371/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1983/1983_82_1772/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1984/1984_83_1097/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_60/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1967/1967_949/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_1016/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_829/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1358/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1978/1978_77_742/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_72_792/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1976/1976_75_1707/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_1820/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1972/1972_71_5656/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1977/1977_76_1159/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_161/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_6033/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1969/1969_540/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1980/1980_80_756/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1973/1973_72_1513/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1323/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_89_535/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1989/1989_88_1377/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_74_453/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1975/1975_73_6935/