|
 |
For the Federalism Project's overview, click here.
Hillside Dairy v. Lyons No. 01-950 and Ponderosa Dairy v. Lyons 01-1018
Should Courts Analyze Voter Intent as a Way to Determine the Intent of City Officials?
Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation No. 01-1269
Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs No. 01-1368
Lawrence v. Texas No. 02-0102
Can California Regulate European Insurance Companies? American Insurance Association v. Garamendi Held: California's Holocaust Victims Insurance Relief Act of 1999 interferes with the President’s conduct of the Nation's foreign policy and is therefore preempted
Torts The
most important preemption cases of the current term arise over state tort
law rather than state legislation. That reflects the fact that tort actions, not
statutes, now generate the most serious state impositions on interstate commerce
and on sister states. Nationwide class actions and arbitrary punitive damage
awards, often in a handful of plaintiff-friendly state courts, provide the most
familiar illustration.
Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine No. 01-706
Federalism and Drug Pricing Pharmaceutical Research v. Walsh
The First Circuit ruled, in May, that Maine's use of Medicaid-as-leverage is not preempted by federal Medicaid law. As Judge Bownes explains, state police powers are not superceded unless that is Congress' clear and manifest intent, and "we perceive no conflict between the Maine Act and Medicaid's structure and purpose." As for the dormant Commerce Clause, the court found the program non-discriminatory and without impermissible extraterritorial reach. Since the program is evenhanded and only has incidental effects on interstate commerce, said the Court, it is subject to a low level of Commerce Clause scrutiny. The Supremes seconded the opinion. The Justices brushed dormant commerce clause questions aside, and found nothing in the Medicaid statute that precludes Maine's regulations (prior authorization may be a big club to wield, but the federal statute expressly permits it). Besides, to paraphrase Justice Stevens, if the Administration doesn't like this bit of state experimentation it has the power to change it. Pharma's "backgrounder"--Why the Maine law is unconstitutional
|
||||||||||||||||||||
At
issue: a First Circuit opinion upholding Maine's price curb program for prescription
drugs. Under the "Rx Program," participants
enroll, get a membership card, and receive discounts on their
prescriptions. The discount is offered by pharmacies and reimbursed by the
state from a "rebate fund" collected from participating drug
manufacturers. Manufacturers who choose not to contribute are punished by
the state: they are "outed" to doctors and the public and, more
damningly, face obstacles in distributing their drugs to Medicaid beneficiaries.