Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (June 20–June 26, 2022), Part 1

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (June 20–June 26, 2022), Part 1

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(June 20–June 26, 2022), Part 1
June 27, 2022
The federal courts issue hundreds of decisions every week in cases involving diverse legal disputes. This
Sidebar series selects decisions from the past week that may be of particular interest to federal lawmakers,
focusing on orders and decisions of the Supreme Court and precedential decisions of the courts of appeals
for the 13 federal circuits. Selected cases typically involve the interpretation or validity of federal statutes
and regulations or constitutional issues relevant to Congress’s lawmaking and oversight functions.
Some of the cases identified in this Sidebar, or the legal questions they address, are examined in other
CRS general distribution products. Members of Congress and congressional staff may click here to
subscribe to the CRS Legal Update and receive regular notifications of new products and upcoming
seminars by CRS attorneys.
This week’s Congressional Court Watcher is divided into two parts because of the number of notable
decisions issued over the past week. This Legal Sidebar discusses Supreme Court activity during the
week of June 20-June 26, 2022, while a companion Legal Sidebar addresses decisions of the U.S.
courts of appeals from that period.
Decisions of the Supreme Court
Last week, the Supreme Court issued decisions in 10 cases for which it heard oral arguments:
 Abortion: In upholding a state abortion restriction by a 6-3 vote, a five-Justice majority
of the Court held that there is no constitutional right to an abortion and overruled earlier
Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v.
Casey that recognized such a right. (Chief Justice Roberts, concurring in judgment but
not joining the majority opinion, would have limited but not overruled Roe and Casey).
Instead, the majority held that abortion restrictions are subject to the rational basis
standard of review, meaning they will be sustained so long as there is a rational basis to
believe a legislature could have thought the restrictions serve a legitimate government
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10769
CRS Legal Sidebar

Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
interest. While there might be some question as to whether a limited set of abortion
restrictions satisfy this standard (e.g., if a restriction does not permit abortion if necessary
to save the life of the mother), legal questions about restrictions on abortion access will
no longer turn on fetal viability or whether such restrictions unduly burden the exercise of
a constitutional right to abortion. Instead, many of the immediate legal questions
surrounding abortion regulation will likely concern the constitutional powers of the states
and federal government. These questions may include the scope of Congress’s power,
both direct and indirect, to regulate abortion access, such as through federal laws and
policies that preempt inconsistent state approaches. Other questions may include whether
certain state abortion bans or other restrictions are preempted already, such as through the
Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of medication abortion drugs. Questions
might also concern the ability of a state to regulate travel by residents seeking abortions
in other jurisdictions, including in another state or on tribal lands. Additional legal issues
may center on the ability of states to impose criminal and civil liability upon persons who
perform or obtain abortions generally, as well as in specific contexts, such as at federally
operated facilities within the state (Dobbs v. Jackson Whole Women’s Health Org.).
 Civil Procedure: In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that North Carolina’s legislative
leaders could intervene as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
24(a)(2) in litigation to defend a voter identification law where the legislators asserted
that the state board of elections, represented by the state attorney general, failed to
vigorously defend the law. The state possessed a legitimate interest in ensuring that its
laws were enforced, and state law granted the legislative leaders authority to represent
state interests in court. The Court further held that a presumption that existing parties
would adequately represent the intervenors’ interests was “inappropriate when a duly
authorized state agent seeks to intervene to defend a state law,” and the interests of the
Board and the legislators did not overlap fully (Berger v. North Carolina State Conf. of
the NAACP).
 Civil Rights: The Supreme Court decided by a 6-3 vote that the failure to provide a
criminal suspect with Miranda warnings, which may lead to the exclusion of unwarned
statements made by the suspect in a later criminal proceeding, does not provide a basis
for bringing a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the state police officer who failed to
provide the warnings (Vega v. Tekoh).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: By a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was
an appropriate procedural vehicle for a state prisoner’s constitutional challenge to the
method of his planned execution (Nance v. Ward).
 Criminal Law & Procedure: In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that a criminal defendant
convicted of attempted robbery under the Hobbs Act did not commit a “crime of
violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A), which would have resulted in the defendant
facing enhanced penalties. The Court determined the Hobbs Act offense was not a “crime
of violence” because a defendant need not use or threaten or attempt to use force to be
convicted (United States v. Taylor).
 Firearms: In a 6-3 decision, the Court struck down New York’s requirement that an
applicant for an unrestricted license to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense
must establish proper cause, ruling that the requirement conflicts with the Second
Amendment (as made applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment). In
doing so, the Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects a right that extends
beyond the home and also clarified the proper test for evaluating Second Amendment
challenges to firearms laws, rejecting a so-called two-step methodology employed by

Congressional Research Service
3
many of the lower courts in favor of an approach rooted in text and the historical tradition
of firearms regulation (New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n., Inc. v. Bruen).
 Health: The Court held in a 7-2 opinion that a health plan did not unlawfully
discriminate against persons with end-stage renal disease in violation of the Medicare
Secondary Payer Act. The majority held that a plan that reimburses all plan participants at
notably lower rates for kidney dialysis (a service used disproportionately, but not
exclusively, by persons with end-stage renal disease) did not violate the statute’s
prohibition against differentiating between individuals with and without end-stage renal
disease (Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita, Inc.).
 Health: In a 5-4 opinion, the Court upheld a Department of Health and Human Services
regulation addressing Medicare Part A payments for covered hospitals serving a
disproportionate share of low-income individuals who might have their care paid for by
Medicare. The regulation construed the Medicare statute’s use of the term “entitled to
[Part A] benefits” to cover all patients eligible for Medicare benefits, and not just those
patients whose care was paid for by Medicare. The majority concluded that this
interpretation was consistent with the text, content, and structure of the governing statute
(Becerra v. Empire Health Foundation).
 Labor & Employment: The Court unanimously held that a state workers’ compensation
law, which applied exclusively to federal employees and contractors at a decommissioned
federal nuclear production site, could not be enforced on account of constitutional
principles of intergovernmental immunity (United States v. Washington).
 Religion: In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Maine violated the First Amendment’s
Free Exercise Clause by excluding sectarian schools from a program providing tuition
assistance for parents who live in school districts without a public secondary school. The
panel held that the exclusion could not withstand strict scrutiny, rejecting the state’s
concerns about the schools using public funds for religious activities (Carson v. Makin).
The Supreme Court also granted certiorari in two cases for its next term:
 Banking: On appeal from the Fifth Circuit, the Court is asked to resolve a split among
the lower courts over the interpretation of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). The BSA
requires reporting of certain financial interests in foreign bank accounts and establishes
penalties for each violation. The Court is asked whether the failure to file the necessary
form is a single violation, regardless of how many accounts might have been reported on
that form, or whether each undisclosed account constitutes a separate violation (United
States v. Bittner).
 Civil Procedure: The False Claims Act (FCA) empowers the federal government to bring
claims against those who defraud the United States. The FCA also allows private parties
to bring claims on the government’s behalf and recover a share of the proceeds of the
action (qui tam actions), but permits the government to seek dismissal of those actions.
The Court agreed to review a case from the Third Circuit regarding whether the United
States may obtain dismissal of a qui tam action even after it initially declined to proceed
with an FCA suit. Assuming that the government has authority to seek dismissal, the
Court is also asked whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure constrain that authority
(United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc.).

Congressional Research Service
4
Author Information

Michael John Garcia

Deputy Assistant Director/ALD

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10769 · VERSION 1 · NEW