lawrota.com

In a recent announcement, the Supreme Court has augmented its docket for the upcoming 2023-24 term with two additional hours of argument. The cases in question, Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe and Becerra v. Northern Arapaho Tribe, delve into the intricate question of whether Native American tribes, managing their healthcare programs, are entitled to federal funds from the Indian Health Service to cover insurance-associated service costs. Concurrently, the court will address Erlinger v. United States, revisiting the Armed Career Criminal Act, specifically exploring whether a jury, as opposed to a judge, should determine the occurrence of crimes on different occasions.

One notable denial of review came in the case of E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Abbott, where the chemical giant sought clarification on whether multidistrict litigation can be bound by the outcomes of “bellwether” trials. These trials, designed as test cases, aim to shape potential settlements and provide insights into the likely outcomes of broader litigation. In this context, the court refused to hear the case, prompting a dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas, who expressed reservations about the use of bellwether trials in multidistrict litigation.

The Abbott case itself arose from a multidistrict litigation against DuPont, with plaintiffs alleging harm from the release of the chemical C-8, used in Teflon production, into the environment. Despite DuPont’s settlement of the majority of cases, subsequent filings, including one by Travis and Julie Abbott, claimed harm from C-8 exposure. The Supreme Court’s decision not to review the case leaves questions about the use and fairness of binding bellwether trials in multidistrict litigation.

#SupremeCourt #LegalFrontiers #NativeAmericanHealthcare #ArmedCareerCriminalAct #MultidistrictLitigation #BellwetherTrials #DueProcess