Benefits attorneys should be mindful of three appellate arguments that were scheduled for December 2024.
U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Tennessee Gender-Affirming Care for Minors Case
In United States v. Skrmetti et al., case number 23-477, the Supreme Court will consider whether the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause applies to access to gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee. The federal government sought review of a Sixth Circuit decision finding that Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming care for minors was constitutional. The Sixth Circuit previously upheld a similar law in Kentucky, although that law is not at issue in the current appeal.
As in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., which overturned the right to abortion under federal law, the Court must determine whether access to gender-affirming care, like abortion, should be a decision left to the states instead of the federal government. If the Court strikes down the Tennessee law, it is likely that most state laws attempting to limit or ban gender-affirming care would be unconstitutional. However, if the Court upholds the law, more states could enact similar bans, and the new Congress may even pursue a federal ban on gender-affirming care.
D.C. Circuit Reviews $13M Damages Award in Pension Fund Withdrawal Liability Case
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will consider whether a district court properly awarded $13 million in damages against a group of commercial trucking companies. The district court found that the group wrongfully refused to pay a union’s initial assessment of about $6.2 million in pension fund withdrawal liability while it disputed the liability amount in arbitration. The case is Trustees of the IAM National Pension Fund v. M & K Employee Solutions LLC, case number 23-7146, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The IAM National Pension Fund provides pension and retirement benefits for employees of M&K Truck Centers, a group of 28 commercial truck dealerships. This dispute arose when several M&K entities withdrew from the IAM fund. A district court judge assessed the damages award after granting summary judgment in favor of the union in September 2023.
On appeal, the trucking company group argued that the district court erred in ruling that an 18% annual interest rate applied to the time during which withdrawal liability went unpaid, as per the union fund’s trust agreement with M&K. The group claimed application of a lower interest rate set by the Internal Revenue Service was proper because the 18% interest rate provision was included in an amendment to the agreement only after M&K withdrew from the fund. The group also alleged that certain affiliates named as parties in the union’s complaint were not liable for pension contributions.
The group previously appealed a related case to a panel of the D.C. Circuit concerning the actuarial assumptions used to calculate the alleged withdrawal liability assessment. That panel affirmed the lower court’s ruling, validating the union’s interest rate assumptions used in its calculation methods. M&K argues that the total withdrawal liability should be much lower in both cases. The related case is currently pending a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Ninth Circuit Considers Idaho Ban on Emergency Abortions
The Ninth Circuit will evaluate a district court injunction against the implementation of Idaho’s abortion ban that applies even in cases of emergency. The district court blocked the state law, finding that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempted it. A panel of the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s injunction, but the en banc Ninth Circuit overturned that decision. As a result, the injunction went into effect in November 2023.
The U.S. Supreme Court previously took up the case in January but remanded it to the Ninth Circuit in June after finding that its review of the case was premature. Although the Court initially stayed the district court’s preliminary injunction in January, it reimposed the injunction in June upon its remand of the case.
The 2020 Idaho law at issue bans healthcare providers in the state from performing abortions except when necessary to prevent the death of a pregnant woman. The parties are disputing the interpretation of EMTALA as applied to emergency abortion services, but the case has larger implications for the relationship between federal and state laws.
The cases are U.S. v. State of Idaho, case number 23-35440, and U.S. v. Moyle, case number 23-35450, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
HBL has experience in all areas of benefits and employment law, offering a comprehensive solution to all your business benefits and HR/employment needs. We help ensure you are in compliance with the complex requirements of ERISA and the IRS code, as well as those laws that impact you and your employees. Together, we reduce your exposure to potential legal or financial penalties. Learn more by calling 470-571-1007.
Hall Benefits Law, LLC
Latest posts by Hall Benefits Law, LLC (see all)
- OSHA Terminates COVID-19 Healthcare Rulemaking - February 18, 2025
