Stay informed on pivotal legal developments, policy changes, and landmark rulings by exploring our "Legal News" section. This section discusses the broader societal implications of contemporary legislative and judicial news.
Legal News
The Inflation Reduction Act: Lowering Drug Costs for Taxpayers but Spurring Lawsuits from Big Pharmaceuticals
By Chloe Kormos - Dec 22, 2024
Photo by Vlad Deep on Unsplash
Inflation Reduction Act:
On August 16th, 2022, the Biden-Harris Administration officially enacted the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), fulfilling its promise to decrease out-of-pocket drug prices for seniors and people with disabilities in the U.S. The IRA grants Medicare, a U.S. federal health insurance program that partially insures individuals aged 65 and older, the authority to negotiate prescription drug prices with pharmaceutical companies for the first time in history.
The Effects:
As a result of this new law, it is estimated that American taxpayers will save around $6 billion on prescription drug costs in 2026 (Cubanski, 2024). The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has already negotiated a decrease in the prices of ten expensive pharmaceutical drugs, cutting the costs from 38% to 89% for the upcoming year (Pierson, 2024). These ten prescription drugs that the Biden-Harris Administration selected to launch under the new act are some of the most commonly used medications in the U.S., treating conditions such as heart disease, cancer, diabetes, blood clots, and more.
Inflation Reduction Act Opposition:
On Friday, September 20th, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals began a review of a lawsuit brought by the U.S.’s largest drug industry lobbying group, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), and two other plaintiffs: the Global Colon Cancer Association and the National Infusion Center Association (NICA). This case is one of eight challenging the IRA’s initiative to lower prescription drug costs. The plaintiffs argue that the new law empowering Medicare to negotiate drug costs is unconstitutional as it violates the Eighth Amendment, which protects against excessive fines, and the Fifth Amendment, which should allow for public input on how the IRA ought to be administered. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that the decrease in drug prices would reduce pharmaceutical companies’ profits and, in turn, hinder them from researching new treatments.
References
Cubanski, J. (2024, November 19). FAQs about the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program. KFF. https://www.kff.org/medicare/issue-brief/faqs-about-the-inflation-reduction-acts-medicare-drug-price-negotiation-program/
Pierson, B. (2024, September 20). Challenge to US drug price negotiation program revived by Appeals Court | Reuters. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/challenge-us-drug-price-negotiation-program-revived-by-appeals-court-2024-09-20/
The United States Government. (2024, August 15). Fact sheet: Biden-Harris Administration announces new, lower prices for first ten drugs selected for Medicare price negotiation to lower costs for millions of Americans. The White House. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/08/15/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-new-lower-prices-for-first-ten-drugs-selected-for-medicare-price-negotiation-to-lower-costs-for-millions-ofamericans/#:~:text=That’s%20because%20Medicare%20has%20the,casting%20the%20tie%2Dbreaking%20vote.
Wingrove, P. (2024, June 21). Pharmaceutical Trade Group sues us over medicare drug price negotiation plans | Reuters. Pharmaceutical trade group sues US over Medicare drug price negotiation plans. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-sued-block-program-that-gives-medicare-power-negotiate-drug-prices-2023-06-21/
The Legal Professions Act: Help or Hindrance?
By Chloe Kormos - Dec 22, 2024
Photo by Hunters Race on Unsplash
BC Bill 21 - 2024 Legal Professions Act:
BC Bill 21, or the Legal Professions Act, was passed on May 16th, 2024. Despite receiving Royal Assent, it has yet to come into force. Two of the Legal Profession Act’s major provisions involve reconfiguring the Law Society of British Columbia’s (LSBC) board structure and grouping lawyers, notaries, and paralegals under a single regulatory body. Prior to the Legal Professions Act, the LSBC had 25 lawyer directors and six government-appointed directors. The LSBC’s directors, also known as benchers, are individuals responsible for modulating legal professionals and governing the LSBC and its programs. The Legal Professions Act alters this composition of directors, cutting the number of lawyer directors to 9 with a new overall total of 17 directors, reducing the percentage of lawyers on the board from 80% to 52%.
The Effects:
According to BC’s NDP government, Bill 21 seeks to modify the regulation of lawyers to lower legal service costs in British Columbia and thus, according to Attorney General Niki Sharma, “enhance access to justice.” Proponents of the Legal Professions Act argue that by reducing the number of elected lawyers on the LSBC board and increasing the number of government-appointed directors from other legal professions, such as paralegals, the focus will shift toward prioritizing and expanding access to more affordable legal services.
Pushback:
Bill 21 has prompted significant pushback. Legal professionals argue that reducing the number of elected lawyers on the LSBC board and transitioning to a single regulator severely undermines lawyers’ independence and self-regulation, in turn, enabling excessive government oversight and leverage over the legal sector. Lawyers have since expressed their desire to be represented by their peers to ensure experts in the field uphold their industry and prevent inordinate interference. Thus, on May 17th, 2024, a day after the Legal Professions Act was passed, the LSBC filed a lawsuit to challenge the bill’s constitutionality.
References:
British Columbia. Legislative Assembly. (2024). Legal Professions Act (Bill 21, 5th Session, 42nd Parliament). Retrieved from
https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billscurrent/5th42nd:gov21-1#section1
KC, D. A. (2024, July 15). Single legal regulator legislation: Where we are and how we got here. Law Society of British Columbia. https://www.lawsociety.bc.ca/news-and-publications/news/single-legal-regulator-legislation-where-we-are-and-how-we-got-here/#:~:text=On%20May%2016%2C%202024%2C%20the,26%20(Bill%2021).
Lazaruk, S. (2024, May 20). B.C. lawyers’ independence under threat with new law, says law society as it files suit against province. Vancouver Sun. https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-lawyers-independence-under-threat-with-new-law-says-law-society-as-it-sues-province
Macnab, A. (2024, May 6). BC’s Bill 21 aids access to justice, sacrifices independence of legal profession, say lawyers. Canadian Lawyer. https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/resources/professional-regulation/bcs-bill-21-aids-access-to-justice-sacrifices-independence-of-legal-profession-say-lawyers/385955
The Bolstering of Human Rights Protection in the United States and, Consequently, Around the Globe
By Chloe Kormos - Oct 18, 2024
Photo by Markus Spiske on Unsplash
Human Rights Defenders Protection Act of 2024:
The Human Rights Defenders Protection Act of 2024 was introduced to the U.S. Senate on January 31st, 2024. Given that human rights defenders around the world are increasingly at risk of serious harm or even death, this bill proposes concrete steps that the U.S. government can take to ensure the protection of individuals who risk their lives to defend democracy. One of the bill’s most notable provisions includes a new visa category that offers up to 500 at-risk human rights defenders multi-year visa entries to the United States. Other key provisions include a comprehensive global strategy to fortify U.S. embassies’ efforts to help protect human rights defenders, an evaluation of U.S. embassies’ existing tools and resources, the bolstering of multilateral and regional approaches, and the development of country-specific training, tools, and strategies for U.S. diplomats.
The Effects:
The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights reports that every year, hundreds of human rights defenders are murdered, and thousands are forced to endure torture, sexual violence, hate crimes, involuntary disappearances, unlawful or arbitrary detention, unlawful or arbitrary digital surveillance, and forced exile. Thus, enacting this new bill will help mitigate the danger that individuals who advocate for political freedom and human rights face. Without immediate and adequate protection of human rights defenders, countries around the world risk the rise of authoritarian regimes, while individuals are increasingly deterred from fighting against corruption and oppression. Regarding the U.S.’s international image, the bill conveys a message that the U.S. is working to uphold human rights and is honoring the democratic principles upon which the nation was founded. The bill’s commitment to the safety of human rights defenders will hopefully catalyze other countries to combat corruption and dictatorships as well.
References
Bicko Ooko, T. (2024, February 5). Human Rights Defenders Protection Act of 2024: US bill signals positive steps in the protection of Human Rights Defenders Worldwide. Universal Rights Group. https://www.universal-rights.org/human-rights-defenders-protection-act-of-2024-us-bill-signals-positive-steps-in-the-protection-of-human-rights-defenders-worldwide/
Chair Cardin introduces legislation to protect Human Rights Defenders Worldwide: United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Foreign Relations Committee . (2024, January 31). https://www.foreign.senate.gov/press/dem/release/chair-cardin-introduces-legislation-to-protect-human-rights-defenders-worldwide
S.3705 - human rights defenders protection act of 2024. Congress.Gov. (2024, January 31). https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/3705/text
Weine, K. (2024, January 31). Proposed US law would protect human rights defenders. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/01/31/proposed-us-law-would-protect-human-rights-defenders
U.S. Supreme Court Restores Trump’s Name on the Colorado Ballot: Confirming Trump’s 2020 Election Loss While Securing His 2024 Candidacy
By Chloe Kormos - Oct 18, 2024
Photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash
Trump Colorado Ballot Case:
In September 2023, leading up to the March 2024 Colorado primary elections, a group of Colorado voters filed a lawsuit against former President Donald Trump and Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold. This lawsuit held that Trump unlawfully and intentionally incited the Capitol insurrection on January 6th, 2021, following his defeat in the 2020 Presidential election. Thus, the Colorado voters argued that Trump’s provocation of civil unrest and violence during congressional proceedings to transfer Presidential power to Joe Biden violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, rendering him ineligible to be placed on the Colorado primary ballot and to serve as President again. Voters drew on Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment as grounds for Trump’s disqualification from the Colorado ballot, arguing that it prohibits individuals who took an oath to uphold the Constitution from partaking in an insurrection.
The Outcome:
On November 17th, 2023, the Colorado district court ruled that Trump would remain on the Colorado ballot, claiming that Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment’s language relates only to an “officer of the United States” and, therefore, given that Trump did not fall under the classification as an officer at the time of the insurrection, it does not apply to him. However, the court did hold that Trump was guilty of inciting the January 6th insurrection. The Plaintiffs appealed this decision on November 20th, and on December 19th, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed the district court’s ruling, disqualifying Trump from the Colorado primary ballot. However, on March 4th, 2024, in the United States Supreme Court Case, Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. Norma Anderson, Et Al., the Supreme Court reversed the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, ultimately restoring Trump’s name on the Colorado ballot.
The Effects:
The Supreme Court decision has now set a precedent for other states that had pending rulings regarding the decision to disqualify Trump from their state ballots. Although the Supreme Court’s decision to secure Trump’s name on the Colorado ballot has protected Trump’s chance in the upcoming 2024 Presidential election, they have simultaneously affirmed that he lost the 2020 election. Ironically, in their attempt to exempt Trump from accusations of violating the Constitution, they have effectively acknowledged that he was no longer the President of the United States.
References:
CBC/Radio Canada. (2024, March 5). U.S. Supreme Court allows trump to stay on Colorado Primary ballot | CBC News. CBCnews. https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ussc-trump-colorado-ballot-1.7132814
Johnson, C. (2024, March 4). A unanimous Supreme Court restores trump to the Colorado ballot. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2024/03/04/1230453714/supreme-court-trump-colorado-ballot
U.S. Supreme Court. (2023). Donald J. Trump, Petitioner v. Norma Anderson, Et Al. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-719_19m2.pdf
The Collapse of the Chevron Doctrine and its Implications
Photo by Carol Highsmith
Overturning the Chevron Doctrine
On Friday, June 28th, the U.S. Supreme Court released two decisions: Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Both cases involved commercial fishing companies challenging a regulation by the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS), an agency under the Department of Commerce, that required commercial fishing boats to pay for at-sea monitors to prevent overfishing. The issue at hand was whether the NMFS agency had the authority to mandate monitors when the Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act is unclear as to whether monitors are required for these two fisheries.
In the 1984 Chevron doctrine, the Supreme Court had established that courts must defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of a statute if the statute is silent or ambiguous on a particular issue. The dissenting justices in Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo argued that Chevron is appropriate because agencies possess much more specialized technical knowledge than courts. This expertise is precisely why Congress has traditionally relied upon agencies to exercise their best judgment on implementing ambiguous legislation as effectively as possible. However, in its recent ruling, the Supreme Court ultimately determined that Chevron denies courts their inherent role in interpreting the law and grants the executive branch too much power in statute interpretation. The Supreme Court, therefore, ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, overturning the Chevron doctrine and awarding federal courts the right to interpret ambiguous laws without the requirement to defer to federal agencies.
By Chloe Kormos - Jul 13, 2024
The Effects
Overruling the long-standing Chevron precedent transfers enormous power to federal courts to make crucial decisions about administering laws. However, this ruling significantly constrains executive branch power and authority by limiting federal agencies’ ability to exercise their intricate technical and administrative expertise to interpret complex federal statutes as they feel most appropriate. This decision opens the door to extensive challenges in federal agency decision-making, potentially weakening social and environmental safeguards. Allowing the judiciary branch the freedom to interpret statutes may enable them to do so in a way that aligns
with political and ideological agendas instead of technical knowledge. In some instances, this will almost certainly involve prioritizing large corporations over public and environmental interest, which many believe is the outcome of Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.
References
Supreme Court of the United States. (2023). Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Russia Found Guilty by The European Court of Human Rights: Vast Violations of Human Rights in Crimea, Ukraine
By Chloe Kormos - Jul 13, 2024
CherryX per Wikimedia Commons
Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) Outcome
On July 25th, The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg came to a unanimous verdict against Russia, finding Russia guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt” of systemic human rights violations in occupied Crimea, Ukraine, since Russia’s occupation in February 2014. The final ruling of Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) marks the end of Ukraine’s first interstate case against Russia’s occupation of Crimea and its subsequent breaches of human rights under the European Convention on Human Rights and international humanitarian law.
Russia has denied these patterns of human rights violations and political repression, claiming that Crimea has been admitted into the Russian Federation and is thus a part of Russia’s legal system. The ECHR, however, has not found these claims to be legally established, noting that Ukraine has been a member of the Council of Europe since 1995 and is, therefore, subject to the court’s jurisdiction.
The Effects
Russia does not recognize the court’s jurisdiction, as it ceased to be a party to the European Convention on Human Rights on September 16, 2022, and was expelled from the Council of Europe on March 15th, 2022, due to its full-scale invasion of Ukraine. As a result, Russia does not feel bound by the ECHR’s verdict or its orders, and it is unlikely that Russia will modify its behavior in Crimea or the rest of Ukraine in any way, at least for the time being. However, this ruling has led to notable advancements in European human rights and international law. For example, Ukraine v. Russia (re Crimea) represents the first occurrence of a case involving military occupation and annexation in the ECHR’s legal history (finding Russia’s occupation illegal), forming an important precedent for future occupation cases. This case also provides significant symbolic success for Ukraine as it verifies that the conflict initiated by Russia on February 24, 2022, was an illegal extension of the occupation that began in Crimea in 2014.
References
Council of Europe. (2024, February 27). The Russian Federation is excluded from the Council of Europe - portal - www.coe.int. Portal. https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/-/the-russian-federation-is-excluded-from-the-council- of-europe#:~:text=In%20an%20extraordinary%20meeting%20this,after%2026%20years %20of%20membership.
Dzehtsiarou, K. (2024, June 26). Ukraine v Russia (re Crimea): The European Court of Human Rights Goes “All-in.” EJIL: Talk! Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/ukraine-v-russia-re-crimea-the-european-court-of-human-rights- goes-all-in/
EHCR. (2024, June 25). European Court of Human Rights. HUDOC. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-234982%22]}
Manfredi, R. (2023, May 31). Russia in the European Court of Human Rights – recent decisions may impact rights of investors. Gibson Dunn. https://www.gibsondunn.com/russia-in-the-european-court-of-human-rights-recent-decisi ons-may-impact-rights-of-investors/
Miklasova, J. (2024, July 3). Ukraine v. Russia (re crimea): Article 6 ECHR in the context of Russia’s annexation and implications for Ukrainian sovereignty. Strasbourg Observers. https://strasbourgobservers.com/2024/07/03/ukraine-v-russia-re-crimea-article-6-echr-in-t he-context-of-russias-annexation-and-implications-for-ukrainian-sovereignty/
