Court orders new review of ERISA case
on Nov 27, 2006 at 10:02 am
The Supreme Court on Monday ordered the Ninth Circuit Court to reconsider a ruling on federal courts’ authority to review denials of benefits to a worker by the administrator of an employee plan. In a summary order, the Court sent the case of Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Hawkins-Dean (05-1424) back to the Circuit Court for review in the wake of an en banc decision by that court in another case. The question of judicial second-guessing of plan administrator’s benefit denials had produced a split in the Circuit Court.
The Ninth Circuit in the Metro Life case ruled against the administrator, based on a conflict of interest. That decision had been based upon an earlier NInth Circuit precedent, which has now been overruled en banc in Abatie v. Alta Health & Life Insurance — the new ruling that the Supreme Court noted in ordering reconsideration of Metro Life.
Today’s orders can now be found here.
Among other orders issued on Monday, the Court declined to hear two appeals by states in test cases on investigation of illegal drugs. In Illinois v. Sloup (05-1367), the question involved police authority to ask about illegal drugs when they make a legal stop of a motorist solely for a traffic violation. Illinois state courts ruled that police must have “reasonable suspicion” of a drug crime before they may ask questions about it during a routine traffic stop. In Florida v. Rabb (06-309), the issue was the constitutionality of police use of a drug-sniffing dog outside a home. Florida courts have ruled twice — once after a Supreme Court remand in this case — that such a dog sniff search outside a residence violates the Fourth Amendment.
The Court declined to order speedier consideration of a student free-speech case, Harper v. Poway Unified School District (06-595). The Court will not consider the appeal by the student in that case until after a response is filed, now due on Dec. 28. On Monday, the Court once again failed to take action on another student speech case — Morse v. Frederick (06-278). The Court has considered the Morse case four times without taking action on it. There is no explanation.
A new attempt to get the Court to rule further on tuition vouchers that are used at parochial schools failed when the Justices declined review of Anderson v. Durham School Department (06-132) — a case in which state courts have upheld the denial of tuition aid to attend private schools, but only if those schools are part of a religious organization. The Court had declined to hear an earlier appeal on the same issue in 1999. In the new appeal, parents of parochial school students had argued that the constitutional landscape on aid to such students had changed with the Supreme Court’s decision upholding such aid in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002).
The Court took no action Monday on another case involving public education and religion — Skoros v. New York City (06-271). That dispute involves a New York City school system policy of allowing holiday season displays of symbols of the Jewish and Islamic faiths, but not the Christian nativity scene at Christmas. The policy was upheld by the Second Circuit Court in a split decision.
The Court denied review of Price v. Philip Morris (06-475), seeking clarification of the legally binding effect — if any — of consent decrees entered by federal regulatory agencies. The case involves a Federal Trade Commission consent decree with the tobacco company. Philip Morris relied upon that decree in arguing against a private damages lawsuit over the use of such terms as “light” and “low tar” in themarketing of cigarettes. The Illinois Supreme Court found that the decree was a sufficident legal basis for authorizing the conduct under state law, and thus overturned a $10 billion damages verdict in favor of a class of individuals who bought Philip Morris cigarettes.
The Court declined to hear an appeal by New Mexico officials, seeking Eleventh Amendment immunity for the state to damage lawsuits against them by their own citizens claiming an illegal seizure of their property through regulatory action. The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that state immunity does not apply to a “takings” claim based on the Fifth Amendment’s just compensation clause. The case was Mining & Minerals Division v. Manning (06-242).
