http://www.oyez.org/issues/judicial-power/federal-question/ 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/1980-1989/1988/1988_87_1372/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1437/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1990/1990_90_34/ <p>Did a case involving the interpretation of federal tax law belong in federal court and not the state court where it was filed?</p><p>Yes. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice David Souter, the Court held that the case involved a federal question and could thus be removed to federal court. Federal-questions jurisdiction, the Court reasoned, lay over some state-law claims that implicated significant federal issues. In this case, the national interest in providing a federal forum for federal tax litigation warranted moving the case to federal court.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2004/2004_04_603/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1985/1985_85_619/ <p>Does the Medicare Act bar judicial review, under federal-question jurisdiction, of challenges to the validity of Medicare regulations?</p><p>Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, the Court held that the Medicare Act barred federal-question jurisdiction of the Council's challenges to the validity of various Medicare regulations. The Court concluded that the Council must proceed instead through the special review channel that the Medicare statutes create. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his dissent that, "[d]elayed review...may mean no review at all. For when the costs of presenting a claim via the delayed review route exceed the costs of simply complying with the regulation, the regulated entity will buckle under and comply, even when the regulation is plainly invalid."</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_98_1109/ <p>No details yet.</p> http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_920/