Skip to content
 

Docket: Recent or Open Amicus Cases

Case Name:  Cochran v. Gresham; Arkansas v. Gresham

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 20-37; 20-38

Filed: 2/25/2021

Read AARP Amicus Brief (PDF) 

Case Issue: Was the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Service’s approval of Medicaid demonstration projects in Arkansas and New Hampshire, that condition health insurance coverage on satisfying work requirements, arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act?

 


Case Name:  Pelcha v. MW Bancorp

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 6th Cir. Docket: 20-3511

Filed: 2/11/2021

Read AARP Amicus Brief (PDF) 

Case Issue: In a disparate treatment case, does the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) require a plaintiff to prove that her age was “the” only “but-for” cause (i.e., the “sole cause”) of challenged conduct by the employer adverse to the plaintiff.

 


Case Name:  Driggs v. Saul

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-16426

Filed: 2/8/2021

Read AARP Amicus Brief (PDF) 

Case Issue:  Was the district court correct in holding that the nine-month marriage duration requirement could not constitutionally be applied to deny Social Security survivors benefits to a spouse when the sole reason the couple had not yet been married nine months before the wage earner’s death was that the state they lived in unconstitutionally barred same-sex marriage?


Case Name:  Ely v. Saul

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-16427

Filed: 2/8/2021

Read AARP Amicus Brief (PDF) 

Case Issue:  Was the district court correct in holding that the nine-month marriage duration requirement could not constitutionally be applied to deny Social Security survivors benefits to a spouse when the sole reason the couple had not yet been married nine months before the wage earner’s death was that the state they lived in unconstitutionally barred same-sex marriage?


Case Name:  Schmoll v. Saul

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-16445

Filed: 2/8/2021

Read AARP Amicus Brief (PDF) 

Case Issue:  Was the district court correct in holding that the nine-month marriage duration requirement could not constitutionally be applied to deny Social Security survivors benefits to a spouse when the sole reason the couple had not yet been married nine months before the wage earner’s death was that the state they lived in unconstitutionally barred same-sex marriage?


Case Name:  Smith v. Board of Directors of Triad Manufacturing (Employee Benefits)

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir. Docket: 20-2708

Filed: 1/21/2021

Read AARP Amicus Brief (PDF) 

Case Issue:  Is an arbitration clause in an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) invalid and unenforceable because it prohibits relief that section 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) expressly permits?

 


Case Name:  Carr v. Saul (Low-income benefits)

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 19-1442, 20-105

Filed: 12/31/2020

Read AARP Amicus Brief (PDF) 

Case Issue:  Are unrepresented Social Security disability applicants required to raise all issues, including constitutional issues, before administrative law judges?

 


Case Name:  Ohio v. Energy Harbor Corp.

Court: Ohio Court of Common Pleas Docket: 20 CV 07386

Decided: 12/21/2020

Read AARP Amicus Brief (PDF) 

Case Result: On December 21, 2020, the Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Franklin County) issued a preliminary injunction halting the payment of 2020 nuclear subsidies by Ohio electricity rate payers, pending resolution of an underlying complaint by Ohio AG for an order permanently enjoining payment of all such subsidies over the next years, totaling over $1 billion.


Case Name: Rutledge v. Pharmacy Care Management Assn.

Court: U.S. Supreme Ct.  Docket: 18-450

Decided: 12/10/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief  (PDF) and Opinion (PDF)

Case Result:  The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that ERISA does not preempt Arkansas’ PBM transparency law.

Case Issue: Many states have passed laws regulating health care market players to address rising health care costs. Does ERISA, the federal law that protects employee benefits, say that states can't do this because the state laws could potentially affect employee benefit plans in some remote way?


Case Name:  Moreheart v. So. Cal. Edison (Access to Courts)

Court: Supreme Court of California Docket: S264970

Decided: 12/9/2020

Read AARP Letter Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The California Supreme Court denied review. 

Case Issue:  Does California Code of Civil Procedure section 36(a), mandating trial preference for elderly and infirm plaintiffs, apply in JCCP coordinated proceedings?

There are thousands of victims of California’s massive fires that have sued utility companies. Are gravely ill elderly litigants entitled to statutory trial preference when they are part of a coordinated proceeding that involves thousands of other litigants?


Case Name: Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litig (In re)

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir. Docket: 18-346

Decided: 12/7/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) Decision (PDF)

Case Result: In a summary, nonprecedential order, the Second Circuit held that Anthem, as an insurance provider, and Express Scripts, as a pharmacy benefit manager, were not acting as fiduciaries  under ERISA when they negotiated prescription drug prices, even though the agreements affected an ERISA plan.


Case Name:  Howard Jarvis Taxpayers' Ass'n v. California Secure Choice Retirement Sav. Prog.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 20-15591

Read AARP Brief (PDF)

Filed: 10/21/2020

Case Issue: CalSavers allows employees who work for employers that do not have employee benefit plans to save money through payroll deductions, investing their money in state-created individual retirement accounts. Does ERISA, the federal law governing employee benefit plans, prevent states from setting up these programs?


Case Name:  Merrill v. People First of Alabama  (Voting Rights)

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 20A67

Read AARP Brief (PDF)

Decided: 10/21/2020

Case Result: Granted stay of September 30 Order of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, after an evidentiary hearing, enjoining enforcement of the AL Secretary of State’s de facto ban on local election officials offering the option of “curbside voting” for the general election November 3, 2020. 


Case Name: People First of Alabama v. Merrill  (Voting Rights)

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 11th Cir. Docket: 20-13695-B

Read AARP Brief (PDF)

Filed: 10/6/2020

Case Issue: Do the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution justify a district court order (i) enjoining the Alabama Secretary of State from barring local election officials from choosing to provide “curbside voting” for voters medically vulnerable to COVID-19 infection, including older voters and persons with disabilities such as diabetes and (ii) enjoining local election officials from enforcing State law requiring absentee voters to include a copy of their photo ID with their absentee ballot? 


Case Name: Andino v. Middleton (Voting Rights)

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 20A55

Read AARP Brief (PDF)

Decided: 10/5/2020

Case ResultGranted stay of order of U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina enjoining enforcement of SC’s rule requiring absentee ballot voters to obtain the signature of a witness (eligible voter or notary) to cast their ballot. Effectively resolves case in favor or applicants-defendants as no further relief is likely before November 3 election.


Case Name: Apache v. Davis

Court: Supreme Ct. Tex. Docket: 19-0410

Decided: 10/2/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) 

Case Result: The Supreme Court of Texas denied cert, leaving in place a jury verdict in plaintiff’s favor on retaliation claim.

 


Case Name: Org. for Black Struggle v. Ashcroft (Voting Rights)

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. WD Missouri Docket: 20-4184-BCW

Read AARP Brief (PDF)

Filed: 10/1/2020

Case Issue: Does the Materiality Provision of the 1964 Civil Rights Act bar rejection of absentee ballots for trivial defects and do the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of Due Process and no undue burden being imposed on voting forbid such rejection, in the circumstances of the COVID-19 crisis, absent  an opportunity to cure such defects without exposure to serious illness due to the coronavirus, because of a requirement that absentee ballot envelope defects must be corrected in-person? 


Case Name: FTC v. Abbvie

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 3d Cir.   Docket: 18-2621, 18-2748, 18-2758

Decided: 9/30/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Opinion (PDF)

Case Result: The FTC had obtained a ruling in federal district court that two pharmaceutical companies had committed antitrust violations under the FTC Act by taking action to delay the market entry of a lower-priced generic drug.  The court had awarded consumer redress of $448 million based on FTC’s claimed authority to seek monetary redress when bringing permanent injunction actions, a position that had been upheld by the vast majority of courts over three decades.  A three-judge panel ruled that Congress had not expressly or impliedly granted that authority to the FTC in the statute creating that permanent injunction authority (15 U.S.C. 57b(b)).


Case Name: NAACP Minnesota-Dakotas Area State Conference v. Simon (Voting Rights)

Court: U.S. Dist. Ct. Minn.  Docket: 62-CV-20-3625

Decided: 9/18/2020

Read Amicus Brief (PDF), Order on Motions (PDF), Stipulation and Consent Decree (PDF), Stipulation and Consent Decree 2 (PDF), Press Release

Case Result: Trial Court issued orders approving settlement of witness requirement and absentee ballot mailing issues also, settlement of witness signature issue was a total victory as the Secretary of State (SOS) agreed to waive enforcement of the requirement for the November 3 election. The settlement of the absentee ballot mailing issue was a partial victory as the SOS agreed to mail absentee ballot applications, rather than absentee ballots themselves, to all registered voters in the State. 


Case Name: Moretalara v. Boston Housing Authority

Court: Commonwealth of Mass., Appeals Ct.  Docket: 22019-P-1024

Decided: 9/17/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Decision (PDF)

Case Result: The court held that fair housing obligations, including the obligation to reasonably accommodate tenants with disabilities, override the strict liability nature of Section 8 rental assistance lease provisions holding tenants accountable for drug-related criminal violations of any member or guest of the household. In this case, the court found that the tenant had proven that her disability prevented her from controlling her caregiver who had violated the lease and that her accommodation of relying on a different caregiver, which had been successful during the appeal, was reasonable.

 


Case Name: Wicks  v. Antelope Valley Healthcare District

Court: Supreme Court of Cal. Docket: S262977

Read AARP Brief (PDF)

Decided: 9/14/2020

Case Result: The California Supreme Court declined to review the issue of whether or not a boilerplate emergency room form provides meaningful notice to patients that the hospital will not be liable for its emergency room physicians’ negligence. 


Case Name: Whitman Walker Clinic v. U.S. Dep't of Health and Human Services

Court: U.S. Dist Ct. D.C. Docket: 20-1630

Decided: 9/2/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF), Press ReleaseOpinion (PDF), Article

Case Result: The district court for the District of Columbia enjoined HHS from implementing the provisions of the rule that would have eliminated discrimination based on sex stereotypes from the definition of discrimination on the basis of sex, and incorporated Title IX’s exemption of certain religious organizations from Section 1557. 


Case Name: City of Oakland v. Wells Fargo

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 19-15169

Decided: 8/26/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The court held that Congress clearly intended the Fair Housing Act (FHA) to be broad enough to encompass aggregate, city-wide injuries such as a decrease in property taxes that Oakland claimed it suffered as a result of Wells Fargo’s unlawful racially discriminatory lending practices throughout the City. The court also held that to bring declaratory and injunctive relief the City would have to allege that the bank’s ongoing bad acts were the proximate cause of its injuries.


Case Name: Jarman v. HCR Manorcare (Healthcare/Income)

Court: Cal. Supreme Court Docket: NS241431

Decided: 8/17/2020

Read AARP's Brief (PDF) and Decision (PDF)

Case Result: The California Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the district court. It held that California Health and Safety Code Section 1430(b) allows for a maximum award of $500 in statutory damages per lawsuit, rather than $500 for each violation of the statute.


Case Name: Indep. Insur. Agents and Brokers v. N.Y.

Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division—Third Department Docket: 530047

Read AARP Brief (PDF)

Filed: 8/10/2020

Case Issue: Is New York’s Suitability and Best Interest Rule, which requires insurance agents and brokers to act in the best interests of consumers, a valid regulation?


Case Name: Talevski v. Health and Hosp. Corp.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 7th Cir. Docket: 20-1664

Read AARP Brief (PDF)

Filed: 8/7/2020

Case Issue: Can a resident in a government-owned nursing facility bring a private right of action under Section 1983 to challenge a violation of their rights under the Federal Nursing Home Reform Act?


Case Name: WVMF Funding v. Palmero

Court: Florida Supreme Court Docket: SC19-1920

Filed: 8/6/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)  

Case Issue: Is a widowed spouse of homeowner, with a reverse mortgage on their marital home, protected from foreclosure because she is a “surviving borrower” of a federally insured Home Equity Conversion Mortgage that protects either spouse from being forced to sell the home to repay the loan while at least one of them continues to live in the property?


Case Name: Frappied v. Affinity Gaming Black Hawk

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 10th Cir. Docket: 19-1063

Decided: 7/21/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)  

Case Result: Reversed decision of 10th Circuit dismissing plaintiffs’ ADEA disparate treatment and disparate impact claims and also their Title VII disparate impact claims; affirmed the dismissal of their Title VII disparate treatment claim.


Case Name: Association for Community Affiliated Plans v. U.S. Dep't of Treasury

Court: U.S. Ct. App. D.C. Cir. Docket: 19-5212

Decided: 7/17/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)  and Opinion (PDF)

Case Result: The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by a 2-1 vote, held that the Departments’ rule defining short-term, limited-duration insurance (STLDI) does not violate the Administrative Procedure Act. 


Case Name: Bostock v. Clayton County; Altitude Express v. Zarda; Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC

Court: U.S. Supreme Ct.  Docket: 17-1618; 17-1623;18-107

Read Amicus Brief (PDF),   Opinion (PDF) and Article

Decided: 6/15/2020

Case Issue: Does Discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitute prohibited employment discrimination "because of . . . Sex" within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000e-2.

Case Result: Court ruled 6-3 that under Title VII, discrimination “because of . . . sex” includes discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and transgender status. I.e., “An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII.” 


Case Name: Jammal v. Am. Family Insurance

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 6th Cir.  Docket: 20-3226

Filed: 6/10/2020

Read Amicus Brief (PDF)  

Case Issue: Was the district court correct in its initial finding that American Family treated its insurance agents as employees?


Case Name: Thole v. U.S. Bank

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 17-1712

Decided: 6/1/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Result: The Court held that when fiduciary misconduct is not likely to affect a defined benefit plan participant’s actual receipt of benefits, the participant has no standing under ERISA, even though the statute creates a right of action for such a lawsuit.


Case Name: California v. Texas (formerly, Texas v. United States)

Court: U.S. Supreme Court   Docket: 19-840 & 19-1019

Filed: 5/13/2020

Read Amicus Brief (PDF)  and Press Release 

Case Issue: Is the Affordable Care Act's minimum coverage provision unconstitutional now that Congress dropped the penalty for not securing ACA-compliant coverage to zero? If that provision is unconstitutional, is that provision severable from the rest of the ACA or does it render the entire ACA invalid?


Case Name: Francis v. Kings Park Manor

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir.  Docket: 15-1823

Filed: 5/7/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief  (PDF)

Case Issue:  Does the Fair Housing Act require landlords to respond to discriminatory tenant-on-tenant harassment?


Case Name: Thryv v. Click-to-Call

Court: U.S. Supreme Ct.  Docket: 18-916

Decided: 4/20/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF) and Decision (PDF)

Case Issue: Is the decision by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board to review a patent through the inter partes review process final and nonappealable?

Case Result: The Federal Circuit’s decision was vacated.


Case Name: Babb v. Wilkie

Court: U.S. Supreme Ct. Docket: 18-882

Read Amicus Brief (PDF) and Opinion (PDF)

Decided: 4/6/2020

Case Issue: Does the ADEA's federal-sector provision -- which requires that such workplaces be "made free from any discrimination based on age" -- prohibit all federal employer conduct for which age is a consideration, or only such considerations if a federal employee or job applicant can show that they would not have incurred harm to their employment opportunities "but for" such consideration of age?

Case Result: Reversed decision of 11th Cir. (affirming district court judgment vs. plaintiff-employee Babb and for defendant-employer United States).


Case Name: Association for Accessible Medicines v. Becerra

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir.  Docket: 20-15014

Filed: 3/5/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief  (PDF)

Case Issue:  Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied the Association of Accessible Medicine’s request to stop the State of California from enforcing its pay-for-delay law while the case is litigated?


Case Name: Intel v. Sulyma

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 18-1116

Decided: 2/26/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)  Decision (PDF)

Case Result: The Court, per Justice Alito, held that receiving ERISA disclosures did not automatically mean that the participant had "actual knowledge" of a breach of fiduciary duty, so the three-year statute of limitations did not apply. 


Case Name:  Maddox v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 2d Cir.   Docket: 19-1774

Filed: 2/26/2020

Read Amicus Brief (PDF)  

Case Issue: Can a borrower seek damages in federal court for a mortgage lender's violation of state law?


Case Name: Texas v. U.S.

Court: U.S. Supreme Court Docket: 19-840, 19-841

Filed: 1/15/2020

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)  and Press Release

Case Issue: Should the Supreme Court agree to review an appeal of a Fifth Circuit decision finding the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional and remanding the case back to the district court?


Case Name: Impax Laboratories v. FTC

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 5th Cir. Docket: 19-60394

Filed: 12/16/2019

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)  

Case Issue: Did the Federal Trade Commission properly determine that a company violated federal antitrust law when, as part of a patent litigation settlement, it accepted payment from a brand name drug company to delay entering its less expensive generic drug into the market?


Case Name: Guillermo Tabraue, Esq. (Estate of Suyima Torres) v. Doctors Hospital

Court: Supreme Court of Florida Docket: SC19-685

Filed: 11/4/2019

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)  

Case Issue: Can hospitals be held legally accountable for negligent care by emergency department physicians who are contractors and not employees? 


Case Name: Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp.

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir. Docket: 18-15281

Filed: 9/20/2019

Read AARP's Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Should the Ninth Circuit grant rehearing en banc of its panel's ruling that employers, via arbitration contract, can strip individual 401(k) retirement plan participants of their right under ERISA to bring federal court actions for fiduciary breach on behalf of the entire plan, see 29 U.C.S. §§ 1132(a)(2) and 1109(a).


Case Name: Am. Diabetes Ass'n v U.S. Dep't of the Army

Court: U.S. Ct. App. 9th Cir.    Docket: 18-15242 

Filed: 6/29/2018

Read Amicus Brief (PDF)

Case Issue: Does a large entity engaged in legal advocacy incur an "injury-in-fact"-- required by Article III of the U.S. Constitution to establish "organizational standing"--by virtue of a single contact between the organization's legal advocacy staff and parents complaining about a matter affecting the group's organizational mission?


Join the Discussion

0 | Add Yours

Please leave your comment below.

You must be logged in to leave a comment.