business Archives - Page 72 of 92 - The National Law Forum

Supreme Court Expands State Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country

In a 5-4 opinion issued Wednesday in Oklahoma v. Castro Huerta, No. 21-429, the Supreme Court expanded the authority of States to exercise criminal jurisdiction over non-Natives in Indian country without tribal consent or congressional authorization, upending a long-standing basic principle of Federal Indian Law and striking a blow to tribal sovereignty. Under federal law, “Indian country” has been interpreted as including Indian reservations, dependent Indian communities, Indian allotments, In Lieu sites (land outside reservation boundaries meant to replace lost Indian lands), and tribal trust lands. The majority opinion in Castro-Huerta, written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, held that States presumptively have “inherent” jurisdiction over crimes committed in Indian country and “do not need a permission slip from Congress to exercise their sovereign authority,” dismissing the Court’s prior statements to the contrary as non-binding dicta. After concluding States presumptively have criminal jurisdiction in Indian country, the majority found that the General Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. 1152, did not preempt that jurisdiction for crimes committed by non-Natives against Natives in Indian country. As a result, States now have concurrent criminal jurisdiction with the federal government to prosecute crimes committed by non-Natives against Natives in Indian country.

Castro-Huerta involved the prosecution of Defendant Victor Manuel Castro-Huerta, who was convicted in an Oklahoma State court of a crime against a Native child. Following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), in which the Court concluded much of Oklahoma is Indian country, Castro-Huerta successfully argued that the State lacked jurisdiction to prosecute him because he committed his crime in Indian country. The State appellate court’s decision in Castro-Huerta’s favor followed the interpretation of the General Crimes Act that has prevailed since the statute’s 1948 reenactment. Under that interpretation, only the federal government has authority to prosecute non-Native individuals who commit crimes against Native individuals in Indian country.

Arguing before the Supreme Court, Oklahoma claimed that the prevailing interpretation is incorrect, and the majority agreed. The Court began its analysis by describing the details of Castro-Huerta’s crime and noting that of the 2 million people who live in Oklahoma, “the vast majority are not Indians.” Op. at 2. The Court also noted that Castro-Huerta had accepted a plea agreement with the federal government for a 7-year sentence followed by removal from the United States (he was in the United States unlawfully), receiving, in effect, a 28-year reduction in his sentence. Op. at 3. The majority stated that his case “exemplifies a now-familiar pattern in Oklahoma in the wake of McGirt” in which non-Indian criminals have received “lighter sentences in plea deals negotiated with the Federal Government” or have “simply gone free.” Op. at 3-4.

Citing the United States Constitution and prior Supreme Court decisions for the proposition that Indian reservations are “part of the surrounding State” and subject to State jurisdiction except as forbidden by federal law, the majority concluded that an “overarching jurisdictional principle dating back to the 1800s” is that “States have jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed in Indian country unless preempted.” Op. at 5-6.

The majority then considered whether the State’s authority to prosecute non-Native v. Native crimes in Indian country had been preempted under the “ordinary principles of federal preemption” or because “the exercise of state jurisdiction would unlawfully infringe on tribal self-government.” Op. at 7. The majority found that the plain text of the General Crimes Act did not expressly provide for exclusive federal jurisdiction. Op. at 7-14. It then rejected Castro-Huerta’s argument that Public-Law 83-280 and similar statutes through which Congress authorized certain States to exercise jurisdiction in Indian country demonstrated Congress’s understanding that States presumptively lack such authority. The majority reasoned that, despite what Congress might have assumed, the question had not yet been decided and the statutes in question lacked language preempting State jurisdiction. Op. at 16-18. The statutes also provided for civil jurisdiction and State jurisdiction over Natives, in addition to criminal jurisdiction over non-Natives, so they were not entirely redundant.

Turning next to whether the exercise of State jurisdiction under the General Crimes Act would unlawfully infringe on tribal self-government, the majority applied the “Bracker balancing test,” which weighs tribal, federal, and state interests, and is generally used to determine whether a state tax is preempted when assessed against a non-Native on tribal land. The majority concluded that the Bracker factors supported State jurisdiction, dismissing any tribal preference for federal jurisdiction as irrelevant to the Court’s analysis, Op. 19 n.6, Op. 20 n. 7. Concluding the State’s inherent jurisdiction had not been preempted, the majority noted in its holding that, “Unless preempted, States may exercise jurisdiction to prosecute crimes committed by non-Indians against Indians in Indian country,” and this “applies throughout the United States,” including on Indian allotments. Op. 24 n.9.

In a scathing dissent, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, pushed back against the majority’s opinion, suggesting any future analysis would need to consider the specific context of each tribe, its treaties, and relevant laws. Dissent at 40-41 n.10. The dissent, appealing for a legislative fix, accused the majority of ignoring history, congressional action, precedent, and tribal sovereignty, and usurping “congressional decisions about the appropriate balance between federal, tribal, and state interests.” Dissent at 38.

Article By Charlene Koski of Van Ness Feldman LLP

For more tribal law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

5 Questions You Should Be Asking About Succession Planning for Your Family Office

Succession planning for family offices is often a difficult process. It is emotional. It takes longer than it should. But succession planning that is deliberate, collaborative, and strategic can offer so much opportunity.

Katten recently hosted a conversation with Jane Flanagan, Director of Family Office Consulting at Northern Trust, who discussed a survey conducted with former family office CEOs to capture their experience with succession and succession planning. The results were illuminating, and the survey participants spoke loud and clear about two major points: 1.) they wished they had begun the process sooner, and 2.) they wished they’d known what questions to ask along the way.

We’ve pulled together a series of basic questions about succession planning to help you consider your own approach.

Why should I create a succession plan?

Like it or not, a succession will take place eventually. The last thing you or your family office want is the chaos, acrimony, and setbacks an unexpected succession can cause.

Putting a plan in place can give your current leadership peace of mind, ensure buy-in and collaboration throughout the family, and prepare potential internal successors or identify key attributes for external candidates.

When should I start?

Now! It’s never too early to begin planning, and there are some easy steps you can take right away to set you on the right path.

If you aren’t sure where to begin or what a planning process looks like, you’re in good company. According to Northern Trust’s recent survey, 64 percent of family office CEOs expect a succession event in the next three to five years.

What is included in a succession planning process?

The planning process will differ from family to family, but Northern Trust created a checklist to help you think through your own approach.

Taking on the entire process at once can be daunting. To build momentum (and buy-in), consider starting small by documenting the responsibilities of the current leadership.

Once you have a good sense of the current role’s responsibilities, think about the knowledge and relationships critical to the role’s success.

These should be top considerations throughout the succession planning process.

Where should I begin?

First, consider putting an emergency succession plan in place as soon as possible while you develop a long-term succession plan.

You want to give this process the time, attention, and consideration it deserves. An emergency plan will help immensely if an unexpected succession is needed, so focus first on getting that in place before you set out on a long-term planning process.

How do I find the right successor?

This is why the planning process is so important. These decisions can have a big impact, so you want to have a plan in place well before you need it.

Consider what works and what could be improved about the current role. Are there creative approaches or changes to consider? (Such as shifting to a CIO/CEO hybrid role, refocusing the role’s priorities, or even expanding into a multi-family office.)

Northern Trust’s survey participants were evenly split on their choices to hire an external successor or grow a successor from within. There are pros and cons to each approach, but so many of the factors to consider will be specific to your situation.

Article By Adam M. Damerow, Abby Feinman, and Saul E. Rudo of Katten

For more family law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

A Primer on Practice at the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board

In a precedential decision rendered in an opposition proceeding, the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board (Board) took the lawyers for each side to task for ignoring Board rules in presentation of their case, but ultimately decided the case on a likelihood of confusion analysis. The Board found that the parties’ marks and goods were “highly similar” and sustained the opposition. Made in Nature, LLC v. Pharmavite LLC, Opposition Nos. 91223352; 91223683; 91227387 (June 15, 2022, TTAB) (Wellington, Heasley and Hudis, ALJs) (precedential).

Pharmavite sought registration of the standard character mark NATURE MADE for various foods and beverages based on allegations of bone fide intent to use in commerce. Made in Nature (MIN) opposed on the ground that Pharmavite’s mark so resembled MIN’s registered and common law “Made In Nature” marks as to cause a likelihood of confusion when used on the goods for which registration was sought.

In its brief to the Board, Pharmavite raised, for the first time, the Morehouse (or prior registration) defense. MIN objected to the Morehouse defense as untimely. The Board agreed, noting that defense is “an equitable defense, to the effect that if the opposer cannot be further injured because there already exists an injurious registration, the opposer cannot object to an additional registration that does not add to the injury.” The party asserting a Morehouse defense must show that it “has an existing registration [or registrations] of the same mark[s] for the same goods” (emphasis in original).

Here, the Board found that this defense was not tried by the parties’ express consent and that implied consent “can be found only where the non-offering party (1) raised no objection to the introduction of evidence on the issue, and (2) was fairly apprised that the evidence was being offered in support of the issue.” In this case, Pharmavite did introduce into the record its prior NATURE MADE registrations but only for the purpose of supporting Pharmavite’s “[r]ight to exclude; use and strength of Applicant’s mark.” The Board found that this inclusion did not provide notice of reliance on the Morehouse or prior registration defense at trial.

In sustaining the opposition, the Board commented extensively on the record and how it was used, “[s]o that the parties, their counsel and perhaps other parties in future proceedings can benefit and possibly reduce their litigation costs.”

Over-Designation of the Record as Confidential

The Board criticized the parties for over-designating as confidential large portions of the record, warning that only the specific “exhibits, declaration passages or deposition transcript pages that truly disclosed confidential information should have been filed under seal under a protective order.” If a party over-designates material as confidential, “the Board will not be bound by the party’s designation.”

Duplicative Evidence

The Board criticized the parties for filing “duplicative evidence by different methods of introduction; for example, once by Notice of Reliance and again by way of an exhibit to a testimony declaration or testimony deposition.” The Board noted that such practice is viewed “with disfavor.”

Overuse of Deposition Designations

The Board criticized both parties for over-designating extensive excerpts of discovery deposition testimony of their own witnesses under Trademark Rule 2.120(k)(4), which provides:

If only part of a discovery deposition is submitted and made part of the record by a party, an adverse party may introduce under a notice of reliance any other part of the deposition which should in fairness be considered so as to make not misleading what was offered by the submitting party. A notice of reliance filed by an adverse party must be supported by a written statement explaining why the adverse party needs to rely upon each additional part listed in the adverse party’s notice, failing which the Board, in its discretion, may refuse to consider the additional parts.

As the Board explained, “[i]t is not an appropriate use of Trademark Rule 2.120(k)(4) to introduce unrelated testimony, rather than just the additional necessary portions of discovery deposition excerpts that clarify the passages originally submitted.” In this case, the Board stated that both parties “are equally guilty of abusing Trademark Rule 2.120(k)(4), and [we] trust that the parties and their counsel will not repeat this practice in future matters before the Board.”

Limiting the Record to Pertinent Evidence

The Board noted that “sizeable portions of each party’s evidentiary materials were not pertinent to the issues involved in this rather straightforward priority and likelihood of confusion opposition proceeding, such that the Board was forced to spend needless time sifting through an inappropriately large record in search of germane proofs.” The Board pointedly noted that “[t]his is not productive. ‘Judges are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in [the record].’”

Record Citations

The Board advised the parties to adhere to its Manual of Procedure at § 801.03. As to how evidence should be cited:

For each significant fact recited, the recitation of facts should include a citation to the portion of the evidentiary record where supporting evidence may be found. When referring to the record in an inter partes proceeding before the Board, parties should include a citation to the TTABVUE entry and page number (e.g., 1 TTABVUE 2) to allow the reader to easily locate the cited materials.

In this case, the Board criticized the parties for using their own exhibit numbering system rather than the TTABVUE docket number and, for testimony submitted by deposition transcripts, using the page and line numbers provided by the court reporters rather than the TTABVUE citations. As the Board noted, this encumbered the Board in its efforts “to provide evidentiary references for use in this opinion; lengthening the time for review of the record, drafting of the decision and ultimately for issuance of this opinion.”

Likelihood of Confusion

After its chapter and verse critique of the presentation by the parties, the Board embarked on an exhaustive Trademark Act § 2(d) analysis, considering and balancing each of the DuPont factors, and ultimately concluded that MIN had sustained its opposition.

Article By Paul Devinsky of McDermott Will & Emery

For more intellectual property legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Abortion-Related Travel Benefits Post-Dobbs

Immediately following the Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v. Jackson returning the power to regulate abortion to the states, a number of large employers announced that they would offer out-of-state travel benefits for employees living in states where abortion-related medical care is unavailable. Employers considering offering abortion-related travel benefits have several key considerations to keep in mind. The law currently allows health plans to provide reimbursement for travel primarily for and essential to medical care. Although this area of the law is evolving, employers with self-funded medical plans may amend their existing medical plans to provide abortion-related travel benefits while those with fully insured medical plans may face more obstacles in providing such benefits.

In Dobbs v. Jackson, an abortion clinic challenged a Mississippi law that would ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with limited exceptions. In establishing the constitutional right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court restricted states in their ability to limit or ban abortions before viability of the fetus, or 24 weeks from the time of conception. In upholding the Mississippi law, the Supreme Court overturned Roe and held that the protection or regulation of abortion is a decision for each state.

Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and South Dakota have already banned or made abortion illegal pursuant to trigger laws which went into effect as of the Supreme Court decision on June 24, 2022. Also, a number of additional states are expected to soon have similar legislation in effect, either by virtue of expected legislative action or trigger laws with slightly delayed effective dates. In response, a number of employers have announced that they will reimburse all or a portion of abortion-related travel expenses for employees in states where abortions are banned or otherwise not available.

Under Section 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, the definition of “medical care” includes transportation that is both “primarily for and essential to” the medical care sought by an individual. These types of travel benefits have historically been utilized in connection with certain specialized medical treatments, such as organ transplants. However, Section 213(d) is not limited to particular types of procedures, and thus forms the framework for providing abortion-related travel benefits through existing medical plans.

Although Code Section 213(d) applies to both self-insured and insured medical plans, the substantive coverage provisions of insured medical plans will generally be governed by the state insurance code of the state in which the insurance policy is issued. Coverage for abortion services or any related travel benefits may not be permitted under the insurance code of the state in which the policy is issued, or an insurer may not offer a travel benefit for such services even if permitted to do so. Self-insured plans, by contrast, provide employers more flexibility in plan design, including control, consistent with existing federal requirements, over the types and levels of benefits covered under the plan. As noted above, existing plans may already cover travel-related benefits for certain types of medical procedures.

Employers with high-deductible health plans tied to health savings accounts (HSAs) will need to consider the impact of adding abortion-related travel benefits to such plans. Travel-related benefits of any type would not appear to be eligible for first dollar coverage, and thus may be of minimal benefit to participants enrolled in high-deductible health plans.

Employers with fully insured medical plans that do not cover abortion-related travel benefits may be able to offer a medical travel reimbursement program through an integrated health reimbursement arrangement (HRA). An integrated HRA is an employer-funded group health plan from which employees enrolled in the employer’s traditional group medical insurance plan are reimbursed for qualifying expenses not paid by the traditional plan.

Another potential option for employers with fully insured medical plans may be to offer a stipend entirely outside of any established group health plan. Such reimbursement programs may result in taxable compensation for employees who receive such reimbursements. Also, employers would need to be sensitive to privacy and confidentiality considerations of such a policy, which should generally be minimized if offered in accordance with the existing protections of HIPAA through a medical plan and under which claims are processed by an insurer or third-party administrator rather than by the employer itself.

Additionally, some state laws may attempt to criminalize or otherwise sanction so-called aiding and abetting actions related to the procurement of abortion services in another state. This is an untested area of the law, and it is unclear whether any actions brought under such statutes would be legally viable. In this regard, Justice Kavanaugh stated as follows in his concurring opinion in Dobbs: “For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel.” (Kavanaugh Concurring Opinion, page 10.) This is an area that will require continual monitoring by employers who offer abortion-related travel benefits.

Article By Thomas G. Hancuch, Philip L. Mowery, and Amal Rafiq of Vedder Price

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

What the C-Suite and Board Should Know About the New CCO Certification Requirement from DOJ

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco presented a new policy at a Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association event that requires chief compliance officers (CCO) to certify that compliance programs have been “reasonably designed to prevent anti-corruption violations.”¹ The policy is an outgrowth of a settlement involving US$1 billion in criminal and civil penalties imposed on mining giant, Glencore International AG (Glencore), after it pleaded guilty to bribery and market manipulation charges.² According to Monaco, this new policy is meant to ensure that CCOs stay in the loop on potential company violations and have the necessary resources to prevent financial crime.³ While the expressed intention of this new policy is to empower CCOs, it has raised concerns about potential liability for CCOs.

GLENCORE SETTLEMENT

Glencore is among the largest companies that dominate global trading of oil, fuel, metals, minerals, and food.⁴ In 2018, Glencore was subject to a multi-year investigation by the DOJ for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and a commodity price manipulation scheme.⁵ According to admissions and court documents filed in the Southern District of New York, Glencore, acting through its employees and agents, engaged in a scheme for over a decade to pay more than US$100 million to third-party intermediaries in order to secure improper advantages to obtain and retain business with state-owned and state-controlled entities. A significant portion of these payments were used to pay bribes to officials in Nigeria, Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Equatorial Guinea, Brazil, Venezuela, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.⁶ Glencore resolved the government’s investigations by entering into a plea agreement (Plea Agreement)⁷According to the Plea Agreement, Glencore admitted to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA.⁸ Shaun Teichner, the general counsel for the company, told a federal judge in New York that Glencore “knowingly and willingly entered into a conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act by making payments to corrupt government officials.”⁹

Glencore expects to pay about US$1 billion to U.S. authorities, after accounting for credits and offsets payable to other jurisdictions and agencies, and about US$40 million to Brazil.¹⁰ A related payment by Glencore to the United Kingdom will be finalized after a hearing next month.¹¹

The Plea Agreement requires that Glencore, among other things: (1) implement two independent compliance monitors, one in the United States and one abroad, to prevent the reoccurrence of crimes; (2) retain a compliance monitor for three years; and (3) have its chief executive officer (CEO) and CCO submit a document certifying to the DOJ’s fraud section that the company has met its compliance obligations (the CCO Certification Requirement or the Certification).¹²

WHY THE CCO CERTIFICATION REQUIREMENT HAS RAISED CONCERNS

The CCO Certification Requirement has raised concerns in the compliance space over potential increases in CCO liability.¹³ Specifically, compliance officials worry that this policy transfers corporate liability into potential individual liability for the CCO. The Certification form asks the CEO and CCO to certify that the compliance program has been “reasonably designed” to prevent future anti-corruption violations.¹⁴ Critics worry that these new certifications may discourage CCOs from taking jobs at companies that are or may be parties to agreements with the DOJ.¹⁵

The DOJ stated that liability will depend on the facts and circumstances of the case but that the new policy is not aimed at going after CEOs or CCOs.¹⁶ Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr. stated, “if there is a knowing misrepresentation on the part of the CEO or CCO, then that could certainly result in some form of personal liability.”¹⁷ Depending on the circumstances, the DOJ may consider it a breach of the corporation’s obligations under the Plea Agreement if there is either a misrepresentation in one of these certifications or a failure to provide the same.¹⁸ Polite added that “the certification memorializes the company’s commitment to take its compliance obligations seriously.”¹⁹

Critics question how realistic the CCO Certification Requirement is for large, multinational companies.²⁰ They also question the due diligence required to actually ensure that compliance programs are “reasonably designed,” especially for companies operating in over 50 countries. Would it be realistic to expect a CCO or CEO to keep tabs on compliance across their company with that level of specificity?²¹

WHAT THE C SUITE AND BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER MOVING FORWARD

The questions to consider are: (1) where will the expressed policy lead? And (2) how do we best prepare for the Certification?

The DOJ has specifically stated its intention to “prosecute the individuals who commit and profit from corporate malfeasance.”²² Regardless of Monaco’s comments, the Certification appears to create potential for an extension of that policy.

The fact of the policy gives rise to a number of subsidiary questions. Is the Certification, which targets foreign corrupt practices, a harbinger for other such certifications in areas such as health care fraud, defense contractor fraud, money laundering, etc.? And is DOJ gearing toward providing its prosecutors with more tools for individual culpability at the highest corporate levels consistent with its expressed policy?

Moving forward, in-house counsel should work with the CEO and CCO to consider areas of corporate business practices that are specifically subject to compliance programs. They should develop practices including auditing, tracking, training, and reviewing to ensure the programs are “reasonably designed” to prevent future wrongdoing. Further, they should be sure to document their corporate business practices. Obviously, these programs become much more complex when operations include foreign jurisdictions and foreign laws with respect to matters such as privacy and employee rights.

Although this process may not be new to protect corporations from criminal charges, the newly-announced policy will certainly focus the spotlight on CEOs and CCOs in the FCPA context and arguably beyond.

FOOTNOTES

¹Al Barbarino, DOJ Defends New CCO Certifications Amid Industry Worry, LAW360 (May 26, 2022), https://www.law360.com/whitecollar/articles/1496108/doj-defends-new-cco-….

²Id.

³ Id.

⁴ Chris Strohm, Chris Dolmetsch & Jack Farchy, Glencore Pleads Guilty to Decade of Bribery and Manipulation, BLOOMBERG (May 24, 2022), https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-24/glencore-to-appear-in-us-uk-courts-over-resolutions-of-probes.

⁵ Id.

⁶ News Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Office of Pub. Affs., Glencore Entered Guilty Pleas to Foreign Bribery and Market Manipulation Schemes, (May 24, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/glencore-entered-guilty-pleas-foreign-bribery-and-market-manipulation-schemes.

⁷ Id.

⁸ Id.

⁹Strohm, supra note 4.

¹⁰ Id.

¹¹ Id.

¹² Id.

¹³Barbarino, supra note 1.

¹⁴ Id.

¹⁵ Id.

¹⁶ Id.

¹⁷ Id.

¹⁸ Id.

¹⁹ Id.

²⁰ Id.

²¹ Id.

²² News Release, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Delivers Remarks Announcing Glencore Guilty Pleas in Connection with Foreign Bribery and Market Manipulation Schemes (May 24, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-merrick-b-garland-delivers-remarks-announcing-glencore-guilty-pleas.

Article By Mark A. Rush and Nadia J. Brooks of K&L Gates

For more corporate law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Update: In Opioid Liability Ruling for Doctors, SCOTUS Deals Blow to DOJ

On June 27, 2022, the United States Supreme Court ruled that doctors who act in subjective good faith in prescribing controlled substances to their patients cannot be convicted under the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”). The Court’s decision will have broad implications for physicians and patients alike. Practitioners who sincerely and honestly believe – even if mistakenly – that their prescriptions are within the usual course of professional practice will be shielded from criminal liability.

The ruling stemmed from the convictions of Dr. Xiulu Ruan and Dr. Shakeel Kahn for unlawfully prescribing opioid painkillers. At their trials, the district courts rejected any consideration of good faith and instructed the members of the jury that the doctors could be convicted if they prescribed opioids outside the recognized standards of medical practice. The Tenth and Eleventh Circuits affirmed the instructions. Drs. Ruan and Kahn were sentenced to 21 and 25 years in prison, respectively.

The Court vacated the decisions of the courts of appeals and sent the cases back for further review.

The question before the court concerned the state of mind that the Government must prove to convict a doctor of violating the CSA. Justice Breyer framed the issue: “To prove that a doctor’s dispensation of drugs via prescription falls within the statute’s prohibition and outside the authorization exception, is it sufficient for the Government to prove that a prescription was in fact not authorized, or must the Government prove that the doctor knew or intended that the prescription was unauthorized?”

The doctors urged the Court to adopt a subjective good-faith standard that would protect practitioners from criminal prosecution if they sincerely and honestly believed their prescriptions were within the usual course of professional practice. The Government argued for an objective, good-faith standard based on the hypothetical “reasonable” doctor. The Court took it one step further.

Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court. He said that for purposes of a criminal conviction under the CSA, “the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knowingly or intentionally acted in an unauthorized manner.” To hold otherwise “would turn a defendant’s criminal liability on the mental state of a hypothetical ‘reasonable’ doctor” and “reduce culpability on the all-important element of the crime to negligence,” he explained. The Court has “long been reluctant to infer that a negligence standard was intended in criminal statutes,” wrote Justice Breyer.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a concurring opinion, which Justice Clarence Thomas joined and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined in part. Although Justice Alito would vacate the judgments below and remand for further proceedings, he would hold that the “except as authorized” clause of the CSA creates an affirmative defense that defendant doctors must prove by a preponderance of the evidence.

The Court’s decision will protect patient access to prescriptions written in good faith. However, for the government, the Court’s decision means prosecutors face an uphill battle in charging, much less convicting, physicians under the CSA. Indeed, the Court’s decision may have a chilling effect on the recent surge in DOJ prosecutions of medical practitioners and pain clinics.

Article By Lindsay K. Gerdes and Madeline R. Pinto of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP

For more litigation legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Why ‘Don’t Say Gay’ Bills are Antithetical to an Equitable and Inclusive Education

According to a 2019 GLSEN national survey of LGBTQ+ students, nearly 60% of surveyed students reported they felt unsafe at school because of their sexual orientation and 43% because of their gender expression. Within the same survey, nearly all (98.8%) LGBTQ+ students reported hearing “gay” used in a negative way at school, 95% heard other homophobic remarks, and 87% heard transphobic remarks.

When I was an educator, it was essential to my practice that all my students felt safe. If I were to hear any negative remarks about a student or become aware one of my students felt unsafe due to their identity, it would be my ethical, and moral, obligation to do something to create a safer and more inclusive learning environment; a core part of my role as an educator was to teach empathy and compassion in my students. This could be as simple as having a classroom discussion about the choices of language and how using words such as “gay” with a negative connotation can be hurtful to their classmates. This could also mean sharing my own identity as a queer man so my LGBTQ+ students knew they had someone they could turn to for support, and to normalize queer identities for all my students and their families. Either of these actions would require I discuss the importance of accepting all sexual orientations and gender identities.

In other words, I would have to say “gay.” But in six states — as of now — I would not have been able to do this.

The state of Florida attracted national attention earlier this year with the adoption of H.B. 1557, the “Parental Rights in Education” bill, more commonly known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. The bill, which has since been signed into law, dictates classroom instruction by “school staff” on “sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students.” Five other states, according to the Movement Advancement Project, have similar laws enacted and several more have bills pending in their state legislatures. Some proponents of these bills argue the legislation is necessary to ensure parents have greater say when, if, and how LGBTQ+ issues are discussed with their children.

Yet these laws are designed to ensure only some parents have greater say, as the parents of LGBTQ+ children are certainly not reflected in these efforts.

At a time when youth mental health is reaching a crisis, state legislatures are advancing bills that would perpetuate, and arguably exacerbate, harmful school-based experiences for LGBTQ+ youth and worsen their well-being. A 2022 survey by the Trevor Project found 45% of LGBTQ+ youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, and over half of transgender and nonbinary youth considered suicide. The 2019 GLSEN survey also found LGBTQ+ students who experienced forms of victimization based on their sexual orientation or gender identity (e.g., being bullied, hearing homophobic or transphobic remarks, etc.) had lower levels of self-esteem, higher levels of depression, and were less likely to say they belonged in school.

Some may argue “Don’t Say Gay” bills would not preclude educators from addressing instances of homophobia or transphobia in their classrooms and try to suggest that prohibitions on such actions are not the intent of the bills. However, regardless of intent, these bills often have the insidious impact to “chill” educators’ actions out of fear they may run afoul of the law and open themselves to reprimands, including being terminated.

All students deserve to have a safe, supportive, and affirming learning environment. All educators should be empowered to protect their students, and not feel afraid to step in when they notice a student being bullied because of their identity. And every parent should have the resources to be a partner in their child’s education. Unfortunately, state laws such as the “Don’t Say Gay” bills will only stand in way of these notions from becoming realities.

It is impossible to support all students when LGBTQ+ children continue to be targeted merely because of their identities.

Article By Sean A. Worley of Nelson Mullins

For more legislative legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

U.S. Supreme Court Sides with Public High School Coach in Free Speech/Freedom of Religion Case

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling which will have wide-ranging effects on the ability of governmental entities to react to religious and other speech of public employees. In Kennedy v. Bremerton Schools, the Court ruled that a public high school could not discipline or disfavor a football coach for his practice of kneeling on the 50-yard line and praying at the conclusion of each game, eventually growing to include most of the football team and opposing players as well. The school district had attempted to accommodate the coach’s desire for prayer, but concerns mounted when one parent complained that her son felt compelled to participate despite being an atheist. The coach was eventually placed on administrative leave and not extended an offer to return to coaching the next school year. Both the district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the coach’s First Amendment challenges.

With a 6-3 majority, the Supreme Court reversed. In doing so, the Court first found a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. The Court discounted the school district’s stated concerns that the coach’s practice could violate the Establishment Clause or interfere with students’ right of free exercise. The Court held that absent evidence of “direct” coercion the Establishment Clause was not implicated and then concluded that the coach’s position of authority over the players was insufficient to constitute direct coercion. The Court distinguished earlier cases involving prayers at football games and civic meetings, by emphasizing that the speech for which the coach was disciplined was not publicly broadcast or recited to a captive audience. Additionally, students were not required or formally expected to participate.

With respect to the Free Speech issue, the Court concluded that the coach’s prayers were not unprotected “government speech,” and in doing so applied a restrictive view of what could be considered “government speech.” The Court held that because the coach’s job duties did not include leading prayers, the fact that the speech occurred on the field immediately after the game was insufficient to transform it from private speech to government speech. “To hold differently,” the Court stated, “would be to treat religious expression as second-class speech and eviscerate this Court’s repeated promise that teachers do not ‘shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.’”

The decision, together with Shurtleff v. Boston decided earlier this Term, suggests a sharp break with past Court jurisprudence on the balance between the dictates of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. Government entities should review their policies on religious activity on government property or by employees in connection with their positions in light of these two decisions.

Article By Ahmad Chehab, Scott R. Eldridge, and Robert T. Zielinski of Miller Canfield

For more civil rights legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Preparing Corporate Messaging in the Wake of Dobbs

The United States Supreme Court (“SCOTUS”), in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, has held that there is no constitutional right to abortion, overruling Roe v. Wade and Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

Employers, who increasingly are finding themselves on the front lines of many societal issues, will need to decide quickly whether and how they might address the Dobbs decision, as public reaction has been and is likely to remain strong. Board members, employees, and shareholders may advocate for corporations to take a visible stand on the issue of abortion and reproductive rights. And employees may want to speak up themselves (possibly via employer social media accounts).

It is important to remember that company communication decisions and actions regarding the Dobbs ruling, as well as other political and social issues, can have practical and legal implications.

The first question is whether your company will comment on Dobbs. If you decide to comment, there are many factors to consider. Your message is an important starting point. Who is your intended audience? Will your employees consider it an opportunity to join in the conversation? What will you say? Even if your message is internal, keep in mind that it may not stay that way, given the nature of social media. And before you think, “I’ll just stay out of it,” remember that some will view silence or neutrality as a statement in and of itself. If you choose not to speak, are you prepared to deal with any potential reaction from customers, employees, or shareholders?

Internally, employees may have questions about health benefits or other terms and conditions of employment because of Dobbs. It will be important to arm all key stakeholders, including leadership, corporate communications, and human resources, with tools to consistently manage these communications and responses.

Whether it’s internal or external communications, expect feedback! How that feedback is handled is as important as the initial communication (or lack thereof).

Certain industries, like healthcare and insurance, may also feel compelled to make an affirmative statement if the Dobbs decision has a direct impact on services and/or products. In those cases, the need to consider all implications is even more pressing.

In thinking through these decisions, employers should also consider who may need to approve any messaging. The board of directors, senior executives, legal, and marketing and communications teams are among the key stakeholders who may need to be consulted. And don’t forget that your public-facing employees may bear the brunt of your response. Are they prepared?

Employers should also keep in mind various laws that may govern their reaction, including those they might otherwise not consider. For example, the National Labor Relations Act protects employees’ rights to collectively discuss terms and conditions of employment at work and off duty – and that applies to employers with and without a unionized workforce. The current Biden-appointed General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board has taken an expanded view of topics that are connected to the workplace. Moreover, some states, including California and New York, have enacted off-duty conduct laws that prohibit employers from disciplining employees for lawful conduct outside of work, which may include political advocacy. There may also be anti-discrimination laws and potential civil and criminal liability associated with your statements, depending on their wording.

Reactions to the Dobbs decision may vary. Some reaction may be comparable to what we’ve seen with respect to other recent political and/or social justice movements, such as Black Lives Matter and #MeToo; others may react differently, or not at all. In these rapidly changing times, companies — particularly publicly traded and consumer-facing ones — need to be make informed decisions. Clear, consistent messaging is key to establishing confident and consistent responses to potential concerns by employees and other stakeholders.

Article By M. Carter DeLorme, Frank C. Morris, JR, Susan Gross Sholinsky, Jennifer Barna, and Erin E. Schaefer of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more civil rights legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

U.S. Supreme Court Overturns Roe and Casey: What This Decision Means for Employers

As many expected based on the draft opinion that was leaked months ago, the U.S. Supreme Court has held the U.S. Constitution does not protect the right to obtain an abortion. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, No. 19-1392 (June 24, 2022).

Dobbs overturns nearly 50 years of precedent from the Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood Pennsylvania v. Casey on the issue.

The impact of Dobbs will vary, as states are now at liberty to enforce and create abortion legislation without restrictions arising out of constitutional protections.

What does this mean for employers?

As pressure mounts on this issue, some employers may be considering what, if anything, they can or should do. Many states have enacted legislation that restricts individual abortion rights and potentially third parties who assist individuals who seek abortions. To the extent any state laws were not enforced because of the Court’s holding in Roe or Casey, states can move forward now to implement and enforce those laws.

Laws often referred to as “trigger laws,” those that are in place but unenforceable due to overriding federal restrictions, become enforceable once those federal restrictions are lifted. As a result of Dobbs, abortion-related “trigger laws” previously unenforceable can take effect, creating new standards for individuals and others that will redefine the national abortion law landscape.

Some existing state laws and trigger laws may affect employers and put employers at risk of violating state law if they implement policies to assist employees seeking an abortion or even continue to cover abortions under group health plans. For example, a state law may create liability for anyone who “aids or abets” a person who obtains an abortion. Employers also must be cognizant of how they apply their leave policies, who may seek accommodations based on a sincerely held religious belief, and whether certain provisions of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act apply to women who are seeking or who have had an abortion.

In addition, the Court’s ruling may affect employee benefit plans. Many employers are considering additional benefits for their employees, and their covered dependents, such as travel reimbursement for seeking an abortion outside of the local jurisdiction due to state law restrictions. There are many legal issues to consider in connection with the coverage of abortion-related services under employee benefit plans. (For additional guidance on the issue, see our article, Group Health Plan Considerations in the Face of (Potentially) Changing Abortion Laws.) Depending on how the state laws are enacted, there also may be issues with relying on ERISA preemption provisions to avoid these obligations.

Corporate management and directors should plan for changes and be aware of policies and fiduciary responsibilities. This can include preparing for public and employee reactions (for and against), legislative and law enforcement threats, social media posts, and other employee demonstrations. Pressure from a variety of groups to take a corporate public opinion also may occur.

Whether changes to leave policies, employee benefits, travel reimbursement, or handling accommodation requests, employers considering policies or benefit offerings in response to Dobbs must carefully review and consider federal and state laws, including state abortion-related legislation to evaluate the risk of potential liability.

Article By Patricia Anderson Pryor, Joy Napier-Joyce, Melissa Ostrower, and Tasos C. Paindiris of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Tag: business

Supreme Court Expands State Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country

Like this: