Issue: (1) Whether 42 U.S.C. § 1396p(d)(4) imposes a mandatory obligation on states to exclude certain trusts from eligibility determinations, such that Medicaid recipients and their trusts may pursue a private cause of action to enforce this provision; and (2) whether recipients and their trusts may maintain such an action under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by asserting that Section 1396p(d)(4) preempts a state law that requires that these trusts be counted.obligation on states to exclude certain trusts from
eligibility determinations, such that Medicaid
recipients and their trusts may pursue a private cause
of action to enforce this provision.
2. Whether recipients and their trusts maintain such
an action under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause
by asserting that § 1396p(d)(4) preempts a state
law that requires that these trusts be counted.
On Monday, the justices met for their September 26 conference. They issued orders from this conference on Thursday. The court granted certiorari in nine cases, consolidating two. The October sitting will begin on October 3; the argument calendar for that sitting is available on the court's website.
Bank of America Corp. v. City of Miami (1) Whether, by limiting suit to “aggrieved person[s],” Congress required that a Fair Housing Act plaintiff plead more than just Article III injury-in-fact; and (2) whether proximate cause requires more than just the possibility that a defendant could have foreseen that the remote plaintiff might ultimately lose money through some theoretical chain of contingencies.
Moore v. Texas (1) Whether it violates the Eighth Amendment and this Court’s decisions in Hall v. Florida and Atkins v. Virginia to prohibit the use of current medical standards on intellectual disability, and require the use of outdated medical standards, in determining whether an individual may be executed.
Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado Whether a no-impeachment rule constitutionally may bar evidence of racial bias offered to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to an impartial jury.
BeavEx Inc. v. Costello Whether the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act preempts generally-applicable state laws that force motor carriers to treat and pay all drivers as “employees” rather than as independent contractors.