Court rejects appeals from
drug manufacturers over
Medicare price negotiations

By Mark Sherman and Ali Swenson 
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected appeals from pharmaceutical companies that object to negotiating Medicare drug prices with the federal government.

The justices did not comment in leaving in place rulings from the federal appeals court in Philadelphia that dismissed the drug manufacturers' claims.

The negotiation program was created as part of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which capped years of debate over whether the federal government should be allowed to haggle directly with pharmaceutical companies over the prices of drugs in Medicare.

The law required the government to negotiate prices for certain high-cost drugs in the federal insurance program for older adults on an annual basis, with the first deals going into effect in 2026.

Not a single Republican voted for the legislation, which was signed by Democratic President Joe Biden. Republicans have been harshly critical of aspects of the law, and Republican President Donald Trump has rolled back programs favoring alternative energy sources.

But the administration has embraced the authority to bring drugmakers to the negotiating table.

So far, the government has negotiated prices for 25 prescription drugs covered by Medicare, including the massively popular GLP-1 weight-loss and diabetes drugs, Ozempic, Rybelsus and Wegovy. In January, the Trump administration announced drugs targeted for a third round of the program, which would bring the total number of drugs with lower prices for Medicare enrollees to 40.

Pharmaceutical companies have forcefully pushed back on the program, arguing policymakers wanting to lower costs should instead rein in insurers and third-party pharmacy benefit managers.

But in the absence of court intervention, stopping the program may require an act of Congress. The statute creating the program doesn't specify an end date.
––––
Swenson reported from New York.

Closely watched Native American
voting rights decision sent
back to lower court

By Lindsay Whitehurst 
Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court acted in a Voting Rights Act case brought by Native American tribes on Monday, saying a closely watched ruling needs to be reconsidered after a high court ruling that weakened the Civil Rights-era law.

The justices ordered lower courts to take another look at the lower-court decision that went against the tribes and undercut a key enforcement mechanism: lawsuits from voters and advocacy groups.

Those groups have been key to enforcing the law, bringing most of the lawsuits filed under the provision of the Voting Rights Act known as Section 2.

But in a North Dakota case brought by two Native American tribes, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only the federal government can sue to enforce the law.

The decision conflicted with decades of case law. The Supreme Court blocked it in July, allowing the tribes' preferred maps to temporarily stay in place.

An attorney for the Native American Rights Fund, Lenny Powell, said tossing out the appeals court ruling was the right call. He vowed to "keep fighting to ensure that Native voters have the ability to vote and effect change in their communities."

The appeals court's finding has nevertheless been cited elsewhere, with Mississippi making a similar argument in another appeal over its state legislative map. The court also sent that case back for reconsideration on Monday.

That decision jeopardizes three new majority-Black state legislative districts, though the effects likely won't be felt until 2027, said Damon Hewitt, president and executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from both decisions, saying she would have left the Mississippi ruling in place and fully reversed the decision in the North Dakota case.

The conservative majority, meanwhile, has already diluted enforcement power with their April decision that struck down a majority Black congressional district in Louisiana and made future cases much harder to win.

In that case, the high court's conservative majority ruled that map relied too heavily on race with a district aimed at giving Black voters a chance to elect a candidate of their choice. The decision effectively limited Voting Rights claims to maps that are intentionally designed to discriminate, a very high standard.
–––
Associated Press writers Gary Fields and Jack Dura in Bismarck, North Dakota, contributed to this report.

headlines Oakland County

• Signature Event
• State leaders recognize Eaton Steel Corporation and local apprentice at 2026 Michigan Works! Impact Awards
• Dept. seeks proposals for community violence intervention initiatives
• Man wrongly convicted of killing two Michigan hunters in 1990 agrees to $5.25M settlement
• SUPREME COURT NOTEBOOK

headlines National

• Play-Based Learning: Can simulation games help lawyers learn management and business development skills?
• ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
• Court orders hospital to resume gender-affirming care for transgender kids
• Netflix’s ‘The Lincoln Lawyer’ will rest his case at end of season 5
• Woman gives birth during arraignment in NYC courtroom
• SCOTUS will examine scope of Title IX protections and whether civil rights law covers work bias claims