In an unpublished case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that actions to obtain a judgment and enforce that judgment in a collection lawsuit filed outside the statute of limitations do not create a continuing violation under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA).
On September 17, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 144 (AB 144) into law, a move in response to recent changes in immunization recommendations by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The bill, which took effect immediately, mandates that health plans cover a wide range of preventive care services, including immunizations, without cost-sharing or utilization management. This legislation is particularly noteworthy for its implications on vaccine coverage requirements.
The Federal Communication Commission (FCC) has finalized its rule under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), addressing prior express consent requirements for sellers to send advertisements and telemarketing notices using an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) or artificial/prerecorded voice. Notably, the one-to-one requirement has been removed.
After a debt collector filed suit to collect an expired debt, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the debt collector could not later compel arbitration of the debtor’s class action because arbitration had been waived.
California Senate Bill 940 (SB 940), enacted in late 2024, introduces several key changes to arbitrations involving “consumer contracts,” which is defined as a contract prepared by a seller and signed by a consumer for the sale or lease of goods or services or for the extension of credit purchased or used primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. Below, we explore the major provisions of SB 940 and their implications.
There has been a flurry of recent activity in a case originally filed by six air ambulance companies claiming $20 million in unpaid emergency services invoices. On June 11, Aetna filed a counterclaim against REACH Air Medical Services LLC, CALSTAR Air Medical Services LLC, Guardian Flight LLC, Med-Trans Corporation, Air Evac EMS Inc., and AirMed International LLC based on alleged manipulation of the Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) process established under the No Surprises Act (NSA). On July 2, the plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaim.
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. —- — S.Ct. —- 2025 WL 1716136 (2025), addressing whether, under the Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act), 28 U.S.C. §2342, district courts are bound by the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits had held that because the Hobbs Act vests exclusive jurisdiction to determine the validity of FCC orders in the circuit (appellate) courts, district courts were bound by the FCC’s orders interpreting the TCPA.
Yesterday, Federal Communications Commissioner Olivia Trusty announced the appointment of several members to her team stating, “I am pleased to announce the talented individuals who will be joining my team. Each brings a wealth of experience, deep commitment to public service, and a shared passion for advancing the Commission’s mission. I look forward to working alongside them as we serve the American people.”
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled that the Medicaid Act’s any-qualified-provider provision does not confer individual rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This decision reverses the Fourth Circuit’s judgment, which affirmed the right of Medicaid beneficiaries to sue state officials for excluding Planned Parenthood from South Carolina’s Medicaid program.
Background
In a significant ruling today, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, addressing the scope of judicial review under the Hobbs Act. The decision marks a pivotal moment in administrative law, particularly concerning the deference required to agency orders in enforcement proceedings. While the Supreme Court previously addressed whether the Hobbs Act applied in private litigation, it ultimately did not resolve whether a district court is required to follow a particular Federal Communications Commission (FCC) order interpreting the TCPA.