Tag: government

Business and Employee Groups Oppose Merger of OFCCP with EEOC

President Trump’s 2018 budget, released on May 23, proposes to merge the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) by the end of FY 2018.  The proposed merger purports to result in “one agency to combat employment discrimination.”  The Trump administration asserts that the merger would “reduce operational redundancies, promote efficiencies, improve services to citizens, and strengthen civil rights enforcement.”

Both business groups and employee civil rights organizations have opposed the measure, albeit for different reasons.  The OFCCP is a division of the U.S. Department of Labor, while the EEOC is an independent federal agency.  Although both deal with issues of employment discrimination, their mandates, functions and focus are different.  The OFCCP’s function is to ensure that federal government contractors take affirmative action to avoid discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability and protected veteran status.  The OFCCP, which was created in 1978, enforces Executive Order 11246, as amended, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, and the Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of 1975.  The EEOC administers and enforces several federal employment discrimination laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, age, disability, gender identity, genetic information, and retaliation for complaining or supporting a claim of discrimination.  Its function is to investigation individual charges of discrimination brought by private and public sector employees against their employers.  The EEOC was established in 1965, following the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Business groups oppose the OFCCP’s merger into the EEOC due to concerns that it would create a more powerful EEOC with greater enforcement powers.  For example, the OFCCP conducts audits, which compile substantial data on government contractors’ workforces, while the EEOC possesses the power to subpoena employer records.  Combining these tools could provide the “new” EEOC with substantially greater enforcement power.  Civil rights and employee organizations oppose the merger, believing that overall it would result in less funding for the combined functions currently performed by each agency.

The budget proposal is consistent with the Trump administration’s goal to reduce costs and redundancies through a reorganization of governmental functions and elimination of executive branch agencies.  In light of opposition from both employers and employees, however, the measure lacks a powerful proponent; as a result, it is unlikely that the administration will succeed in effecting a combination, at least as it is currently proposed.

This post was written by Salvatore G. Gangemi of Murtha Cullina.

“Hello, Newman" Government Continues to Litigate Reversed Insider Trading Convictions

Barnes & Thornburg LLP Law Firm

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, has decided not to go down without a fight. Following a Second Circuit panel’s reversal of Bharara’s signature achievement, the insider-trading convictions of former hedge fund managers Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson, the U.S. Attorney’s office has petitioned the court for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The Securities and Exchange Commission has also weighed in on the U.S. Attorney’s side, arguing in an amicus brief that the panel seriously erred in its decision. Meanwhile, in other cases, particularly outside the Second Circuit, the Justice Department, and the SEC have argued strenuously that the Second Circuit’s panel decision should not be followed.

In the Second Circuit, the battle lines are being drawn. Bharara’s office has asked both the panel and the full Second Circuit to rehear the case. The US Attorney’s office has argued that the panel erred by imposing two requirements that are purportedly contrary to law– first, that a tipper act for a “personal benefit” of financial consideration, or something at least akin to monetary gain; and second, that the tippee know that the tipper supplying the inside information acted for such a benefit. The SEC has concurred with this assessment, elaborating on Newman’s conclusion that evidence of friendship between tipper and tippee is insufficient to prove the “personal benefit” necessary for tipping liability. The Commission contends that this contradicts Dirks v. SEC, the Supreme Court’s seminal insider trading decision. Both the U.S. Attorney and the SEC contend that, if Newmanremains the law, it will seriously threaten the integrity of the securities markets, and government regulators will be dramatically limited in their ability to prosecute “some of the most common, culpable, and market-threatening forms of insider trading.”

In opposition, Newman and Chiasson, along with various law professors, the criminal defense bar, and even Marc Cuban, have argued that the Second Circuit panel got it right when it imposed an important, objective outer bound to an otherwise amorphous illegal activity. The defendants even engaged in ad hominem criticism of Bharara, analogizing him to a “Chicken Little” complaining that the sky is falling, or more precisely, a “petulant rooster whose dominion has been disturbed.” Those supporting the opinion assert that any perceived difficulty created by the decision can, and should, be rectified by Congress.

Even as the Newman case continues forward, its repercussions are being felt within the Second Circuit and beyond. In the Southern District alone, at least a dozen defendants, who were convicted or pleaded guilty underpre-Newman law, have argued that their cases need to be revisited in light of Newman. No court yet has agreed with that argument, but most of these motions remain pending.

Outside the Second Circuit, the Government is looking to ring-fence the Newman decision and limit its applicability elsewhere. Federal prosecutors, for example in North Carolina, have argued that Newman is not the law in the Fourth Circuit and therefore should not be followed. Meanwhile, defendants in other jurisdictions are invokingNewman in pending, and even resolved, insider trading matters, both civil and criminal.

Defendants are even arguing Newman’s applicability within the SEC’s administrative courts – with success. In In re Peixoto, an SEC administrative proceeding related to Herbalife, the Commission voluntarily dropped its case against Peixoto after Newman. Other cases in the agency’s courts (including against SAC founder Steven Cohen) remain on holding pending final resolution of Newman. And in In re Ruggieri, the administrative law judge said that he would require the SEC to demonstrate the Newman standard of “personal benefit.”

Clearly, the Newman saga has not reached its conclusion, but the fall-out already demonstrates what a momentous decision the Second Circuit panel made.

ARTICLE BY

Brian E. Casey
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

“Hello, Newman” Government Continues to Litigate Reversed Insider Trading Convictions

Barnes & Thornburg LLP Law Firm

The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Preet Bharara, has decided not to go down without a fight. Following a Second Circuit panel’s reversal of Bharara’s signature achievement, the insider-trading convictions of former hedge fund managers Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson, the U.S. Attorney’s office has petitioned the court for rehearing and rehearing en banc. The Securities and Exchange Commission has also weighed in on the U.S. Attorney’s side, arguing in an amicus brief that the panel seriously erred in its decision. Meanwhile, in other cases, particularly outside the Second Circuit, the Justice Department, and the SEC have argued strenuously that the Second Circuit’s panel decision should not be followed.

In the Second Circuit, the battle lines are being drawn. Bharara’s office has asked both the panel and the full Second Circuit to rehear the case. The US Attorney’s office has argued that the panel erred by imposing two requirements that are purportedly contrary to law– first, that a tipper act for a “personal benefit” of financial consideration, or something at least akin to monetary gain; and second, that the tippee know that the tipper supplying the inside information acted for such a benefit. The SEC has concurred with this assessment, elaborating on Newman’s conclusion that evidence of friendship between tipper and tippee is insufficient to prove the “personal benefit” necessary for tipping liability. The Commission contends that this contradicts Dirks v. SEC, the Supreme Court’s seminal insider trading decision. Both the U.S. Attorney and the SEC contend that, if Newmanremains the law, it will seriously threaten the integrity of the securities markets, and government regulators will be dramatically limited in their ability to prosecute “some of the most common, culpable, and market-threatening forms of insider trading.”

In opposition, Newman and Chiasson, along with various law professors, the criminal defense bar, and even Marc Cuban, have argued that the Second Circuit panel got it right when it imposed an important, objective outer bound to an otherwise amorphous illegal activity. The defendants even engaged in ad hominem criticism of Bharara, analogizing him to a “Chicken Little” complaining that the sky is falling, or more precisely, a “petulant rooster whose dominion has been disturbed.” Those supporting the opinion assert that any perceived difficulty created by the decision can, and should, be rectified by Congress.

Even as the Newman case continues forward, its repercussions are being felt within the Second Circuit and beyond. In the Southern District alone, at least a dozen defendants, who were convicted or pleaded guilty underpre-Newman law, have argued that their cases need to be revisited in light of Newman. No court yet has agreed with that argument, but most of these motions remain pending.

Outside the Second Circuit, the Government is looking to ring-fence the Newman decision and limit its applicability elsewhere. Federal prosecutors, for example in North Carolina, have argued that Newman is not the law in the Fourth Circuit and therefore should not be followed. Meanwhile, defendants in other jurisdictions are invokingNewman in pending, and even resolved, insider trading matters, both civil and criminal.

Defendants are even arguing Newman’s applicability within the SEC’s administrative courts – with success. In In re Peixoto, an SEC administrative proceeding related to Herbalife, the Commission voluntarily dropped its case against Peixoto after Newman. Other cases in the agency’s courts (including against SAC founder Steven Cohen) remain on holding pending final resolution of Newman. And in In re Ruggieri, the administrative law judge said that he would require the SEC to demonstrate the Newman standard of “personal benefit.”

Clearly, the Newman saga has not reached its conclusion, but the fall-out already demonstrates what a momentous decision the Second Circuit panel made.

ARTICLE BY

Brian E. Casey
OF
Barnes & Thornburg LLP

This Week in Congress – February 2, 2015 re: 2016 Budget Proposal, DHS, and more

Covington_NL

President Obama will release his Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 budget proposal today, requesting roughly $4 trillion in spending for the upcoming year and specifying the Administration’s views on how and from what sources the federal government should be raising money and how and on what it should be spending it for the fiscal year beginning October 1.  The President’s budget sets off a fiscal showdown with the Republican-led Congress, whose members generally view the Administration’s proposals as higher taxes and higher government spending.  Many of President Obama’s cabinet members will be on Capitol Hill this week and in the coming weeks, testifying before House and Senate committees as to the merits of the budget proposal and highlighting areas of potential compromise as Congress develops its own budget for FY 2016.  Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew will be before the House Ways and Means and Senate Budget Committees on Tuesday, while IRS Commissioner John Koskinen will be before the Senate Finance Committee.  On Wednesday, Shaun Donovan, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, is scheduled to appear before the House Budget Committee and Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, appears before the Senate Finance Committee.  In addition, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold the confirmation hearing this week for Ashton Carter to serve as Secretary of Defense.  With Committee Chairman John McCain’s strong desire for increased defense spending, the budget will no doubt be front and center in that hearing as well.

The House of Representatives returns to legislative business on Monday taking up three bills concerning programs at the Department of Homeland Security.  On Tuesday, the House will vote on H.R. 596, a bill that would repeal the Affordable Care Act while directing House committees to develop alternatives.  Since the Affordable Care Act was signed into law in 2010, Congress has voted 54 times on measures to repeal, revamp, or make technical changes to it.  On Wednesday, members will consider H.R. 50, the Unfunded Mandates Information and Transparency Act of 2015, sponsored by Rep. Virginia Foxx.  This legislation, which passed the House in 2014 by a vote of 234-176, would impose stricter requirements for how and when federal agencies must disclose the cost of federal mandates and equips both Congress and the public with tools to determine the true costs of regulations.  On Thursday, the House will vote on H.R. 527, the Small Business Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act of 2015, sponsored by Representative Steve Chabot, which requires federal agencies to consider the economic effects of regulations on small business before imposing overly burdensome mandates that prevent growth and job creation.  This legislation has also passed the Republican-controlled House in the two previous Congresses.

The Senate returns on Monday and is expected to vote on H.R. 203, the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act, a bill that the House passed unanimously.  The bill would require annual evaluations of the Department of Veterans Affairs’ mental health and suicide prevention programs.  The Senate will then seek to turn to H.R. 240, an appropriations bill that will fund the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of 2015; the current budget for DHS expires  Feb. 27. While the bill provides $40 in funding for DHS, it also blocks any of the funds from being used to carry out President Obama’s new immigration and deportation policy announced in an executive order last November.  President Obama has pledged to veto the measure if the immigration rider is included.  Leader McConnell is unlikely to be able to get the 60 votes needed on cloture on the motion to proceed to the appropriations bill.  Once the cloture vote fails, he will need to figure out an alternative means of considering the legislation.  He has put a clean Democratic DHS appropriations bill on the Senate Calendar under Rule 14, so moving to that bill after the failed cloture vote is one possibility.

In addition to the hearings focused on the President’s budget and on the Defense Secretary nomination, a list of other key congressional hearings this week is included below:

 Feb. 3

 House Committees

Global Threat Assessment
House Armed Services
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 2118 Rayburn Bldg.

Flu Preparation and Prevention
House Energy and Commerce – Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 2123 Rayburn Bldg.

U.S. Interests in Western Hemisphere
House Foreign Affairs – Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 3, 11 a.m., 2172 Rayburn Bldg.

Immigration Law Assessment
House Judiciary
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 11 a.m., 2141 Rayburn Bldg.

Inspectors General Oversight
House Oversight and Government Reform
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10:15 a.m., 2154 Rayburn Bldg.

NSF Research Facility Oversight
House Science, Space and Technology – Subcommittee on Oversight; House Science, Space and Technology – Subcommittee on Research and Technology
Committee Joint Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 2318 Rayburn Bldg.

Energy and Transportation Issues
House Transportation and Infrastructure – Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 2167 Rayburn Bldg.

Fiscal 2016 Budget Issues – Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew
House Ways and Means
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 1300 Longworth Bldg.

Airport Access Control Measures
House Homeland Security – Subcommittee on Transportation Security
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 3, 2 p.m., 311 Cannon Bldg.

Wounded Warrior Program
House Armed Services – Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 3, 3:30 p.m., 2118 Rayburn Bldg.

Senate Committees

Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
Senate Armed Services
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 9:30 a.m., G-50 Dirksen Bldg.

Fiscal 2016 Budget – Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew
Senate Budget
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 608 Dirksen Bldg.

U.S.-Cuba Relations
Senate Foreign Relations – Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights and Global Women’s Issues
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 419 Dirksen Bldg.

IRS Fiscal 2016 Budget Request – John Koskinen, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service
Senate Finance
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10:30 a.m., 215 Dirksen Bldg.

No Child Left Behind and Student Needs
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 3, 10 a.m., 216 Hart Bldg.

Joint Committees
Veterans Affairs Issues
House Veterans’ Affairs; Senate Veterans’ Affairs
Committee Other Event
Feb. 3 TBA, Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave. NW

Feb. 4

House Committees

Military Compensation and Retirement Commission
House Armed Services
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 2118 Rayburn Bldg.

Fiscal 2016 Budget Issues – Shaun L.S. Donovan, Director, Office of Management and Budget
House Budget
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10:30 a.m., 210 Cannon Bldg.

U.S. Schools and Workplaces
House Education and the Workforce
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 2175 Rayburn Bldg.

HUD Ethical Oversight
House Financial Services – Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 2167 Rayburn Bldg.

U.S.-Cuba Policy Assessment
House Foreign Affairs
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 2172 Rayburn Bldg.

Legal Workforce Act
House Judiciary – Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 2141 Rayburn Bldg.

Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act
House Judiciary – Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 4, 1 p.m., 2141 Rayburn Bldg.

Palestinian Authority and International Criminal Court
House Foreign Affairs – Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 4, 2 p.m., 2172 Rayburn Bldg.

Senate Committees

Secretary of Defense Nomination
Senate Armed Services
Full Committee Confirmation Hearing
Feb. 4, 9:30 a.m., G-50 Dirksen Bldg.

HHS Fiscal 2016 Budget Request – Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Secretary, United States Department of Health and Human Services
Senate Finance
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 215 Dirksen Bldg.

Cybersecurity and Private Sector Issues
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 253 Russell Bldg.

Implications of Immigration Action
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., 342 Dirksen Bldg.

Vessel Discharge Regulations
Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation – Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and Coast Guard
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 4, 2:30 p.m., 253 Russell Bldg.

Indian Affairs Legislation
Senate Indian Affairs
Full Committee Markup
Feb. 4, 2:30 p.m., 628 Dirksen Bldg.

Loan Leveraging Issues
Senate Indian Affairs
Full Committee Oversight Hearing
Feb. 4, 2:30 p.m., 628 Dirksen Bldg.

Financial Exploitation of Seniors
Senate Special Aging
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 4, 2:15 p.m., 562 Dirksen Bldg.

Joint Committees

Proposed Waters Rule
Senate Environment and Public Works; House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee Joint Hearing
Feb. 4, 10 a.m., HVC-210 Capitol Visitor Center

Feb. 5

House Committees

Drinking Water Protection Act
House Energy and Commerce – Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy
Subcommittee Hearing
Feb. 5, 10 a.m., 2123 Rayburn Bldg.

Senate Committees

Treasury Fiscal 2016 Budget Request – Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew
Senate Finance
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 5, 10 a.m., 215 Dirksen Bldg.

Joint-Employer Standard
Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
Full Committee Hearing
Feb. 5, 10 a.m., 430 Dirksen Bldg.

Judiciary Issues

Senate Judiciary
Full Committee Business Meeting
Feb. 5, 10:30 a.m., 226 Dirksen Bldg.

Kaitlyn McClure, Covington & Burling LLP Policy Advisor, co-authored this post.

ARTICLE BY

Richard A. Hertling
OF
Covington & Burling LLP

Special Edition Health Care Law Update – November 11, 2014

Mintz Levin Law Firm

Elections Wrap Up, Lame Duck Preview, and a Changing Congress

In this ML Strategies Special Edition Health Care Update, we bring you a detailed look at two of the most pressing health care policy topics facing policymakers:

  1. Sorting out Congressional leadership changes post-midterm elections and looking ahead to the  upcoming Lame Duck session of Congress; and
  2. Monitoring the rapidly escalating effort to combat the Ebola epidemic.

Impact of Midterm Elections

On November 4th, voters cast their ballots giving the Republican Party control of the upcoming 114th Congress. Looking ahead to the new Congress, there will be some significant changes to the leadership on Committees of jurisdiction. While leadership will not be officially decided until Congress convenes in January, some predictions are below.

  • Senate Finance Committee: Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) will chair the Committee. As Chairman, Hatch is expected to focus on tax reform and is likely to advance his bill S. 232, to repeal the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) excise tax on medical devices as part of this process. Hatch can also be expected to push for additional transparency from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and support policy changes to the ACA such as we have seen the House pass in the 113th Congress. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) will be the ranking member. Hatch and Wyden have a strong working relationship and share interest in tax reform. Wyden is also a strong supporter of the ACA and is unlikely to support repealing or replacing the health care law, be they partial or wholesale proposals. On the whole, Democrats will likely have to cede at least two seats to the Republicans, meaning they will have to drop at least one member from the committee.
  • Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee: Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) is expected to chair the HELP Committee. Alexander will likely turn first to Ebola, should there be lingering issues unresolved after the Lame Duck. Alexander and the Committee’s current chair, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), introduced a bill to accelerate the development of Ebola treatments and vaccines. Alexander will also try to chip away at the ACA. In the past, he has said the Committee will vote early in the next Congress to repeal the ACA, though he conceded that the law will stay in effect as long as President Obama is in office. Alexander is more optimistic about tweaks to the ACA. Among his top priorities are addressing wellness, passing a 40 hour work week bill, and tackling small business insurance.

The Democrats have yet to pick their ranking member. As Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) will opt for the ranking membership of the Appropriations Committee, Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Bob Casey (D-PA) could all be the lead Democrat on the Committee. The subcommittee chairs will likely be Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY) for Children and Families, Senator Richard Burr (R-NC) for Primary Health and Aging, and Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) for Employment and Workplace Safety.

  • House Energy and Commerce Committee: Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) will continue to chair the Committee. His agenda will resemble that in the 113th Congress, promoting the 21st Century Cures Initiative, which, among other things, promotes accelerated discovery of cures, streamlined development of drugs and devices, and greater use of health care technology to offset rising health care costs. He will also likely continue to try and reign in various provisions of the ACA. Other than the law’s repeal, which the Committee will likely take up at the start of the next Congress, Upton may seek to scuttle the employer mandate and the medical device tax. In addition, he may seek to overhaul or even dismantle the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which would administer provider cuts unilaterally if certain spending thresholds are surpassed. Upton recently released the Committee’s record of success webpage and outlined several priorities for the new Congress, including building on the work already done on the 21st Century Cures Initiative.

On the Democratic side, with Representatives Henry Waxman (D-CA) and John Dingell (D-MI) retiring, Representative Frank Pallone (D-NJ) is in line to be ranking member. However, Minority Leader Pelosi has been a strong advocate for Representative Eshoo to take the Ranking Membership. With top slots opening up on other committees because of midterm losses, some congressional analysts believe that Pallone could end up moving back to the Natural Resources committee in place of Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), who is likely to become Ranking Member on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, following the loss of current Ranking Member Nick Rahall (D-WV). Of the 10 or so House Democrat losses, including Representatives John Barrow (D-GA) and Brad Schneider (D-IL), that are official, the majority of them have indicated explicitly, or have been characterized by others, as Pallone supporters- so it will be interesting to see how that plays out if it comes down to the last few votes.

  • House Ways and Means Committee: Representatives Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Kevin Brady (R-TX) are jockeying for the chairmanship, but it is widely believed that Representative Ryan will most likely prevail. Like Senator Hatch, Ryan will focus on tax reform. He will inherit Chairman Camp’s template, which he’ll likely keep with some changes. This effort could very well effect the health care community should Ryan join Senator Hatch in an attempt to repeal the medical device tax. Ryan will also address health care, separate from taxes, including holding hearings to critique the law and to demand more transparency and build on efforts in the 113th Congress to pursue Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse legislation. Representative Sander Levin (D-MI) is expected to remain the Ranking Member. However, House Democrats are eyeing Representative Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) to rejoin the committee. A budget expert with a strong grasp on tax policy, Van Hollen could serve as a vocal counterweight to Ryan, reprising a role he played opposite Ryan on the Budget Committee.

Lame Duck Preview

President Obama, who began his presidency with a Democratic majority in the Congress, will now round out his last two years in office with a Republican majority. This leaves the upcoming Lame Duck session as the last opportunity for the president and his Democratic colleagues in the Senate to set the legislative agenda.

Among one of the items most likely to pass is the FY 2015 appropriations legislation. With no appropriations legislation finalized prior to recessing for elections, Congress approved a short-term Continuing Resolution (CR) funding the Federal government at Fiscal Year 2014 levels through December 11, 2014. Before the CR expires, the Lame Duck Congress will likely pass either: 1) another short-term CR running through February or March 2015; 2) a long-term CR for the remainder of the fiscal year ending on September 30, 2015; or 3) an Omnibus appropriations bill setting new spending levels for FY15. Additionally, in the days after the midterm election, President Obama submitted an emergency funding request of $6.18 billion for the fight against Ebola and will push Congress to pass the request during the Lame Duck.

The Lame Duck offers some hope of passing a permanent solution to the Medicare physician payment formula, also known as the “SGR” or the “Doc Fix.” Looking to vehicles such as tax extenders or an omnibus spending bill, Congress still must determine how to pay for reforming the SGR. Members of the House GOP Doctors Caucus wrote to House leadership requesting that Congress take up SGR reform before the end of the year. The letter notes that the Lame Duck is a unique opportunity to bring much-needed stability to the Medicare program that will benefit seniors and physicians alike and requested more discussions on offsetting an SGR repeal.

While stakeholders and experts remain skeptical that such an effort would be successful, lawmakers are pulling out all the stops to engage industry to support a potential SGR fix this year. However, the current temporary extension of the SGR patch continues through March 2015, meaning that action could slip to next year.

Should Congress attempt to push through a comprehensive SGR bill in the Lame Duck, this would provide a vehicle for other Medicare proposals that are kicking around the House Ways and Means Committee—including Representative Brady’s draft fraud, waste, and abuse package, Protecting Integrity in Medicare Act of 2014 (PIMA), and Medicare extenders. Representative Brady reportedly wanted to introduce PIMA in the Lame Duck and, if there is bipartisan interest, pass the legislation under suspension. However, there has been no groundwork laid for this package in the Senate, so passing the package without a larger vehicle (such as SGR) may be unlikely.

Ebola Epidemic and Lame Duck Response

On November 4th, President Obama convened his national security and public health teams to discuss Ebola preparedness at home and the whole-of-government approach to contain the epidemic at its source in West Africa. The President’s advisors noted HHS’ efforts to ensure U.S. hospitals and the broader health system are prepared to identify, isolate, and treat patients. The team also discussed the screening of individuals traveling from the affected West African countries and the monitoring requirements these individuals are subject-to upon arrival in the U.S. There was consensus that, despite initial signs of progress in Liberia, the international community must continue to attack the problem aggressively at the source of the epidemic in West Africa.

Following this meeting, the Obama Administration announced it is seeking $6.18 billion through an emergency funding request to Congress to enhance efforts to address the Ebola crisis. The White House has requested $2.43 billion for HHS, including $1.83 billion for the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to prevent, detect, and respond to the Ebola epidemic, $333 million for the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund (PHSSEF) for health worker training, manufacturing of synthetic therapeutics and vaccines, and modeling and genetic sequencing of the Ebola virus, $238 million for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct clinical trials of investigational vaccines and therapies, and $25 million for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to regulate Ebola vaccines and therapeutics. The Administration is also requesting $1.98 billion for USAID to scale up foreign assistance in West Africa, $127 million for the Department of State to support UN Mission for Ebola Emergency Response (UNMEER)operations, and a $1.54 billion contingency fund.

The President communicated this request to Congress in a November 5th letter to congressional leadership requesting that Congress consider his Administration’s $6.18 billion emergency appropriations request to implement a comprehensive strategy to contain and end the Ebola outbreak at its source in Africa, enhance domestic preparedness, speed procurement and testing of vaccines and therapeutics, and accelerate global capability to prevent spread of future infectious diseases. President Obama urged expeditious consideration of the proposal.

As we enter the Lame Duck, Congress is expected to tackle Ebola as a priority when it reconvenes. On November 12th, the Senate Appropriations Committee will hold a hearing on the U.S. Government response to the Ebola outbreak. Witnesses will include HHS Secretary Sylvia Matthews Burwell, CDC Director Dr. Tom Frieden, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson, Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources Heather Higginbottom, USAID Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance Nancy Lindborg, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Michael Lumpkin, and Joint Chiefs of Staff Deputy Director for Political-Military Conflict James Lariviere.

On the heels of the Appropriations Committee hearing, the House Foreign Affairs Committee will hold a November 13th hearing to examine international and U.S. efforts to combat the Ebola epidemic in West Africa. The hearing, “Combating Ebola in West Africa: the International Response,” will feature witnesses including: USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah, State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of African Affairs Bisa Williams, DOD Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict Michael Lumpkin, DOD Deputy Director for Politico-Military Affairs (Africa) Major General James Lariviere, and DOD Joint Staff Surgeon Major General Nadja Y. West.

As Congress turns its attention to the Administration’s response, the FDA continues to work with industry to develop a vaccine to combat Ebola. Outlining a plan at an American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene conference last week, Dr. Luciana Borio, head of the FDA’s Ebola response team, said the FDA is taking a “novel” approach and will test multiple drugs at once in an umbrella study with a single comparison group. This plan is intended to accelerate the testing process as patients will be paired with a drug and with someone from a comparison group to look for patterns.

* * *

Implementation of the Affordable Care Act

In-Patient Hospitalization Guidance: HHS and the Internal Revenue Services (IRS) released guidance stating that group health plans must cover hospitalizations in order to satisfy minimum value under the ACA. The guidance, which will be followed up by proposed regulations, states the agencies “believe that plans that fail to provide substantial coverage for in-patient hospitalization services or for physician services” do not meet minimum value requirements.

Other Federal Regulatory Initiatives

CMS Innovation Center Webinar: On November 10th, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Innovation Center will hold a webinar to provide an update on the work of the Center and the models being tested to improve care for patients, communities, and lower costs. Dr. Patrick Conway, CMS Deputy Administrator for Innovation and Quality and CMS Chief Medical Officer, will be the lead presenter in the webinar.

New Members of the Health IT Policy Committee: HHS Secretary Burwell announced the appointment of a new member to the Health Information Technology Policy Committee (HITPC) and renewed appointments for three members of the Health IT Standards Committee (HITSC). The new appointment is Anjum Khurshid, director of the health systems division of the Louisiana Public Health Institute.

HHS Survey on Health Coverage: The HHS Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) released the findings of a survey of health insurance coverage for 2013 and 2014. Among other things the survey finds that, as of June 2014, 10.3 million nonelderly Americans, age 18 to 64, gained health insurance coverage since the beginning of the ACA open enrollment.

HRSA Awards Mental Health and Substance Abuse Funding: The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) announced $51.3 million in ACA funding to support 210 health centers in 47 states to establish or expand behavioral health services for nearly 440,000 people.

ONC Data Sheds Light on Attestation Rates: The Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT (ONC) released a data analytics update on the 2014 attestation experience. The update shows that 4,656 doctors and other eligible providers and 258 hospitals had attested to Stage 2.

CDC Releases Monitoring Guidance for Ebola: The CDC released updated monitoring and movement guidance defining four risk levels based on degree of exposure to Ebola. The guidance helps to ensure a system is in place to quickly recognize symptoms that may necessitate a person be routed to medical care.

Other Health Care News

Study of Marketplace Insurance Premiums: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute released a study of public filings from 17 states and Washington, DC of marketplace insurance premiums in early approval states. The report finds that premium increases will be low, with 10 states increasing only 5 percent, 2 states increasing more than 5 percent, and 6 states seeing premium reductions.

Specialty Providers Press NAIC on Access: The Alliance of Specialty Medicine sent a letter to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) regarding draft policy models for individual and small group market health insurance coverage. The Alliance urged NAIC to ensure consumers have access to specialists without suffering high out-of-pocket costs.

WHO Recommends Overdose Policies: The World Health Organization, estimating that 69,000 people die a year from opioid overdose, advised that those likely to witness an overdose incident, such as family members, should be given access to the opioid antidote naloxone and trained in its use. The FDA approved use of naloxone injectors for family use in April 2014.

Survey of ICD-10 Preparation: The American Health Information Management Association and the eHealth Initiative released a survey of health delivery organizations and clinicians finding that 65 percent of respondents indicated that they could begin end-to-end testing prior to the fourth quarter of 2015 but that there remain concerns that revenue will decrease during the first year of ICD-10 compliance.

Georgetown University Survey of Children’s Insurance: Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families found that in 2013, for the first time in five years, children’s health uninsured rates did not drop. The 2013 rate was 7.1 percent, compared to 7.2 percent in 2012. Since 2008, the number of uninsured children has shrunk from 6.9 million to 5.2 million.

Upcoming Congressional Hearings

Senate

On November 12th, The Senate Appropriations Committee will hold a hearing on the U.S. Government response to the Ebola outbreak.

House

On November 13th, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs will hold a hearing titled, “Combating Ebola in West Africa: The International Response.”

ARTICLE BY

Joseph P. Hammang, PhD
Alexander Hecht
Andrew J. Shin
Abby Matousek
OF
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

House Passes Bill to Prevent EPA Overreach

Varnum LLP

The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed legislation prohibiting the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from developing, finalizing, adopting, implementing, applying, administering, or enforcing the EPA rule defining what constitutes “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act.

This Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014, H.R. 5078, comes as a response to a move by the EPA in April of this year that proposed changes to how the EPA will define “waters of the United States.” The EPA’s update uses scientific terms from hydrogeology to define which waters are covered under the Clean Water Act.

Farmers, however, have criticized the EPA update as 80 pages of technical and legal jargon. After Congressional hearings, the House passed The Waters of the United States Regulatory Overreach Protection Act of 2014. This bill will go to the Senate next for consideration.

ARTICLE BY

Aaron M. Phelps
Sherry X. Lin
OF
Varnum LLP

Kentucky Supreme Court Approves Plugging Holes with Others' Piggy Banks using Budget Drafting

McBrayer NEW logo 1-10-13

Budget drafting is one of the most challenging, yet essential, functions of state governments. Unlike the federal government, which has the ability to run large deficits and print its own currency, almost every state – Kentucky included – has a statutory or Constitutional framework requiring a balanced budget. Every two years, the Commonwealth’s budget drafters utilize familiar methods to balance the ledger: debt restructuring, adjusting tax rates and spending levels, infusing federal funds and taxing new revenue sources. Another option, less understood by the public but increasingly utilized by Kentucky policy makers, is “sweeping” restricted funds. This controversial task has just been made easier thanks to a recent decision by the Kentucky Supreme Court. In a 5-2 opinion, the practice of sweeping regulatory accounts was declared lawful, meaning that lawmakers may continue to transfer fees and fines collected by state regulatory agencies to the General Fund without violating the Kentucky Constitution. The legality of sweeping funds that are generated by a statutory tax (rather than fines and fees) was not directly addressed by the Court, leaving open the possibility that the sweeping of such funds may yet be deemed unconstitutional.

As background, state regulatory agencies have the power to police certain occupations and activities in order to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the public. The cost of administering such regulation is borne by those in that occupation, who pay state-imposed fees and/or fines. Regulatory fees can only be levied to compensate an agency for issuing a license and playing a supervisory role over the profession; they cannot be used to generate state general fund revenue.The statutes that govern state agencies contain anti-lapse provisions that allow monies collected in one fiscal year to remain in the agency’s account for the next year. Further, Section 180 of the Kentucky Constitution provides that taxes must be levied with a specific, distinct purpose and cannot be devoted to any other purpose after collected.

Although the practice is not new, the genesis of this case was the passage of the 2008-2010 biennial budget in 2008. Pursuant to an Executive Order by Governor Beshear that year, and in response to a General Fund budget shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars, anti-lapse provisions were suspended, and funds in certain agency accounts were transferred to the General Fund. Subsequently, two separate set of appellants brought suit, arguing that regulatory fees may only be used by the collecting agency for regulatory purposes, and that their transfer to the General Fund for general revenue purposes, in effect, converts them to taxes, in violation of the Kentucky Constitution.

The two cases made their way through the trial court and Court of Appeals and were then certified for discretionary review at the Kentucky Supreme Court. Because they presented similar issues, the Court consolidated their review and issued a single opinion.

At issue before the Supreme Court wasthe transfer of $700,000 from the Department of Charitable Gaming (“DCG”) and the transfer of $10 million from various funds created within the Department of Housing, Buildings and Construction (“DHBC”). DCG and DHBC both rely upon licensing, permit and inspection fees and fines (for example, for building code violations or illegal gaming) to carry out their regulatory responsibilities.

According to the Court, “it is not unlawful for the General Assembly to provide in a budget bill for the suspension of anti-lapse provisions in agency enabling statutes and for the transfer to the General Fund of surpluses incidentally existing in agency accounts.” The only requirement is that the fees collected bear a “reasonable relation” to the regulatory expense so that a revenue-raising intent does not appear. In addition, though the funds come solely from private sources, the agencies’ supervisory actions (e.g., building codes and gaming regulations) benefit the public at large; thus, they are considered public funds and subject to budget-bill transfer.

The dissent, authored by Judge Venters and joined by Judge Scott, disagrees with the majority that the amounts transferred from the agencies were genuinely “surplus.” There is a clear distinction, as the dissent sees it, between a true surplus left over when a project is complete (such as the construction of a court house or the building of a road) versus the cases at hand where the money could have been used to pay for ongoing regulatory functions. Transferring funds, Venters wrote, results in higher fees on future participants, along with less agency service and protection.

While neither DCG nor DHBC generated funds through statutory taxation, some state agencies do, and these agencies are having substantial portions of their account balances transferred as well. For example, $9 million was swept from the Tourism Marketing Fund in order to balance the 2014-2016 budget. This fund is generated by a 1% tax on hotel rooms in Kentucky, which was passed overwhelmingly by the General Assembly in a 2005 omnibus tax bill. The Supreme Court only gives passing reference, in a footnote, to the important distinction between taxes and regulatory fees in this decision, but does little more to address the constitutionality of sweeping revenues generated through taxes, which is a clear violation of Section 180.[1] The 2014-16 budget calls for agency transfers totaling about $300 million.

Although the practice of transferring funds was commonplace long before this court ruling, it did not take long for policymakers to cite it as justification for subsequent sweeps. Kentucky’s biennial budget bills often include a “General Fund Budget Reduction Plan” which authorizes the governor to cut the budget at the margins in the event of a shortfall, without calling the legislature back to redraft and pass another budget. A one-percent reduction in estimated revenue left a $90.9 million hole that needed to be filled before closing the books on the 2014 fiscal year. Less than one month after the ruling, Governor Beshear transferred almost $50 million from a range of agency funds, including the Board of Nursing, another transfer from Housing, Buildings and Construction, various environmental protection funds, among dozens of others. “The use of fund transfers is a valuable tool in how we manage and balance the overall budget of the Commonwealth, and one that keeps us from making deeper cuts to state agencies,” Governor Beshear said. “The recent ruling by the Kentucky Supreme Court again affirms the constitutionality of this practice, thus ensuring much needed flexibility for the executive and legislative branches.”

For now, it appears that all branches of state government are content with addressing budget shortfalls with money from agency pockets. The Supreme Court was clear that the transfer of regulatory fees does not constitute a hidden tax, but because they remained silent on the issue of the constitutionality of sweeping funds accrued from an express tax, further litigation or legislation may be required before agencies can stop the raid of taxes from their funds.

[1] See Footnote 6, “In a broad sense, perhaps, any monetary exaction by a governmental entity could be thought a tax, but a ‘tax’ in the strict sense of monies levied to meet the general expenses of government has been distinguished in a variety of contexts from more particularized exactions, such as fines, user fees – tolls, for example – infrastructure assessments, or regulatory fees, such as those at issue here…[T]he classic ‘tax’ is ‘imposed by a legislature upon many, or all, citizens. It raises money, contributed to a general fund, and spent for the benefit of the entire community…[T]he classic ‘regulatory fee’ is imposed by an agency upon those subject to its regulation…[I]t may serve regulatory purposes directly by, for example, deliberately discouraging particular conduct by making it more expensive…[O]r, it may serve such purposes indirectly by, for example, raising money placed in a special fund to help defray the agency’s regulation-related expenses.'” (citing San-Juan Cellular Tel. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’s of Puerto Rico, 967 F.2d 683, 685 (1st Cir. 1992)(citations omitted).

U.S. Supreme Court Gives Increased Protection to Government Employees

The Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously that government employees who testify about public corruption are protected by the First Amendment. The case, Lane v. Franks,[1] centered on a public employee, Lane, who worked at an Alabama community college where he led the school’s program for at-risk youth.

While working for the community college, Lane discovered a state representative was on the program’s payroll, despite doing no work for the program. Lane terminated the representative’s employment, and subsequently, the representative was indicted by federal authorities on corruption-related charges. Lane testified, under subpoena, at the representative’s trial in 2008. In 2009, Lane was fired from the college. Lane sued the community college president individually and in his official capacity alleging that the official violated his First Amendment protections.

The college president argued that Lane’s sworn testimony was not protected by the First Amendment because it was based on information that he gathered from his role as a state employee, not as a private citizen. The lower courts agreed with the college president, determining that Lane acted in his official capacity when firing the state representative and had acted in the same capacity when testifying at her trial. The Supreme Court disagreed and stated that Lane testified “as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” According to Justice Sotomayor, “Truthful testimony under oath by a public employee outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. That is so even when the testimony relates to his public employment or concerns information learned during that employment.”

The ruling means that government employees should feel more protected when stepping forward with whistleblower-type information. Both public and private employers should exercise caution when taking negative actions against an employee who has complained of or filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in some kind of investigation or proceeding, as the action could be considered retaliatory.

[1] No. 13-483 (2014).

Article By:

Luke A. Wingfield
Of:
McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie and Kirkland, PLLC

Tax Tip: Free Federal Filing Program

Dickinson Wright Logo

Did you know that an individual may use free online tax preparation software and e-filing if he or she qualifies? This may be useful knowledge for your young adult children, even if you are not eligible.

The Free File Alliance is a nonprofit coalition of industry-leading tax software companies that have partnered with the IRS to help millions of Americans prepare and e-file their federal tax returns for free.

There are more than a dozen software options (brand-name software) available to assist a taxpayer with a 2013 adjusted gross income (“AGI”) of $58,000 or less at no cost. Choose your software carefully because some companies offer free state tax preparation and e-filing, whereas others do not.

Even though an individual’s gross income may be higher than $58,000, the individual may still qualify for this service because his or her gross income (e.g., salary, dividends, interest, alimony, and rental income) is reduced by various deductions, the most common being contributions to an IRA or qualified plan, to calculate the individual’s AGI.

70% of American taxpayers are eligible for this service and 98% of users would recommend this program to others.

If your AGI is higher than $58,000, free File Fillable Forms are available for federal returns only, including free e-filing. This service was recently extended to be available for use until October 2015. Go to www.irs.gov/freefile to begin.

Article By:

Robin L. Miskell
Of:
Dickinson Wright PLLC

Legal Updates for Government Entities Covering March and April 2014

RCA Logo

Arizona Court of Appeals

Immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.05

Tucson Unified School District v. Gallagher, –P.3d–, 2014 WL949114 (March 11, 2014)

The Gallaghers sued TUSD and a TUSD school employee, Michael Corum, alleging that Corum sexually abused and/or exploited their developmentally challenged daughter at a TUSD school. The Gallaghers claimed that TUSD was vicariously liable for Corum’s conduct and was negligent in hiring and supervising Corum. The Gallaghers alleged that if TUSD had properly investigated Corum’s employment history they would have discovered that a prior employer recommended that he not be employed in a position that involved disabled children. TUSD filed for summary judgment, arguing that it was immune under A.R.S. § 12-820.05 because Corum had committed a felony and it had no actual knowledge of Corum’s purported propensity for such conduct. The trial court denied summary judgment, concluding that TUSD should have known of the circumstances of Corum’s previous conduct and thus the immunity statute did not apply. TUSD appealed.

A.R.S. § 12-820.05(B) provides that a public entity is not liable for losses that arise out of and are directly attributable to a public employee’s act or omission that is determined by a court to be a felony, unless the public entity knew of the public employee’s propensity for that action. The Court of Appeals held that immunity under A.R.S. § 12-820.05(B) applies unless the entity has actual, not constructive, knowledge. The Court based its decision on the plain language of the statute. When the legislature intends a standard of actual or constructive knowledge, it expressly states so. The use of the word “knew” in the immunity statute unambiguously shows the legislature’s intent to require actual knowledge rather than constructive knowledge. A.R.S. § 12-820.05(B) means exactly what it says—that immunity applies unless the public entity actually knew of the “employee’s propensity.”

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Qualified immunity for warrantless entry

Sheehan v. City and County of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2014)

Sheehan suffered from a mental illness and was residing in a group home.  Her assigned social worker was concerned about her deteriorating condition, deemed her gravely disabled, and called the police to transport her to a mental health facility for a 72-hour involuntary commitment. When officers Reynolds and Holder arrived at the home, they entered Sheehan’s room, without a warrant, to confirm her mental condition and take her into custody. Sheehan reacted violently, grabbed a knife, threatened to kill the officers, and told them that she did not wish to be detained in a mental health facility. The officers retreated to the hallway for their safety and called for backup. But rather than waiting for backup to arrive, the officers drew their weapons and forced their way back into Sheehan’s room. Sheehan again threatened them with a knife. The officers shot her six times. Sheehan survived and filed a § 1983 action, claiming the officers’ entry into her room violated the Fourth Amendment and they used excessive force. The district court found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity and granted summary judgment. Sheehan appealed.

Generally, a warrantless search or seizure in a person’s home is presumptively unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. But there are exceptions to the warrant requirement, including the emergency aid exception. The emergency aid exception applies when, under the totality of the circumstances, (1) law enforcement had an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there was an immediate need to protect others or themselves from serious harm, and (2) the search’s scope and manner were reasonable to meet the need. Under this exception, the Ninth Circuit held that the officers’ first entry into Sheehan’s room did not violate the Fourth Amendment because they had an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there was an urgent need to protect Sheehan from serious harm. The officers knew she was off of her medication, was not taking care of herself, had threatened her social worker, and was gravely disabled and in need of involuntary hospitalization.  Indeed, the court noted that the officers reasonably took a cautious approach to the situation and that “erring on the side of caution is exactly what we expect of conscientious police officers.”  And they carried out the search in a reasonable manner. They knocked and announced and used a pass key to gain entry. They did not draw their weapons and had no reason to believe that their entry would trigger a violent confrontation.

The court found that the emergency aid exception also justified the second warrantless entry into Sheehan’s room. The officers continued to have an objectively reasonable basis for concluding that there was an urgent need to protect Sheehan from serious harm. And because the two entries were part of a single, continuous search or seizure, the officers were not required to separately justify the continuing emergency with respect to the second entry. But the court found that fact issues as to whether the entry was conducted in a reasonable manner precluded summary judgment, and noted that Ninth Circuit case law would put any reasonable, competent officer on notice that it is unreasonable to forcibly enter the home of an armed, mentally ill subject who is acting irrationally and threatening anyone who entered, when there was no objective need for immediate entry.

Lack of resources defense/ jury instruction in § 1983 cases

Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076 (9th Cir. 2014)

Peralta, a prison inmate, sued a prison dentist claiming deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment. At trial, the court instructed the jury that “whether a dentist or doctor met his duties to Peralta under the Eighth Amendment must be considered in the context of the personnel, financial, and other resources available to him or her or which he or she could reasonably obtain.” Peralta challenged this jury instruction on appeal.

The Ninth Circuit noted that the Supreme Court has not said whether juries and judges may consider a lack of resources as a defense in § 1983 cases. But the Supreme Court has held that prison officials are not deliberately indifferent to a prisoner’s medical needs unless they act wantonly, and whether an official’s conduct can be characterized as wanton depends on the constraints facing him. See Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 303 (1991). The Court has also held that even if an official knows of a substantial risk, he’s not liable if he responded reasonably. Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 844 (1994). This framework makes clear that what is reasonable depends on the circumstances that constrain what actions an official can take.

Several constraints impacted and delayed provision of care for Peralta. Security concerns dictate that only one prisoner at a time can be in the exam room, and the prisoner cannot be left alone in the room because dental tools can be used as weapons. During lockdown, only emergency cases can be seen. Dentists can’t accept prisoners’ complaints at face value, as inmates often try to jump the line by exaggerating symptoms.

The Ninth Circuit noted that lack of resources is not a proper defense to a claim for prospective relief. But a claim for damages is different. Damages provide redress for something an official could have done but did not. So with respect to a claim for damages, the nature of the available resources is highly relevant to show the scope of choices that the individual defendant had. A prison medical official who fails to provide needed treatment because he lacks the necessary resources can hardly be said to have intended to punish the inmate. The court held that the challenged jury instruction properly advised the jury to consider the resources the dentist had available in determining whether he was deliberately indifferent.

United States Supreme Court

Scope of Fourth Amendment consent to search

Fernandez v. California, 132 S.Ct. 1126 (2014)

Officers responding to an assault call saw a man running through an alley and into a building.  A minute or two later, they heard sounds of screaming and fighting coming from the building. They knocked on the apartment unit from which the screams were coming. A crying woman, Rojas, answered the door. Her face was red, she had a large bump on her nose, and fresh blood was on her shirt and hand. Officers asked her to step outside so they could do a protective sweep of the apartment.  The plaintiff, Fernandez, stepped forward and told the officers that they could not enter. Believing that Fernandez had assaulted Rojas, the officer removed him from the apartment and arrested him. About an hour later, a detective returned to the apartment and requested and received oral consent from Rojas to search the premises. Police found evidence incriminating Fernandez, which Fernandez moved to suppress in his criminal case. Fernandez argued that the search was unconstitutional because his denial of consent trumped the later consent Rojas gave. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, the California Court of Appeals affirmed the denial, and the California Supreme Court denied the petition for review. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Consent searches are recognized as an exception to the requirement for a search warrant. In 1974, the Supreme Court held that police officers may search jointly occupied premises if one of the occupants consents. See United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974).  Years later, the Court recognized a narrow exception to this rule, holding that the consent of one occupant is insufficient when another occupant is present and objects to the search. Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006). Here, the Court declined to expand the current rule. They rejected Rodriguez’s argument that his objection to the search should have barred a later search since he was absent from the premises only because the police arrested and removed him.  The Court held that an occupant who is absent due to a lawful detention or arrest stands in the same shoes as an occupant who is absent for any other reason. The Court also rejected the idea that once an occupant objects to a search, the objection remains effective until withdrawn.

Article By:

Lisa S. Wahlin
Of:
Ryley Carlock & Applewhite, A Professional Corporation