Westlaw Journals weekly round-up

December 3, 2014

Westlaw Journals Weekly RoundupSorry that we missed you last week. This week we’re back with a few litigation news highlights from the Westlaw Journals blog, which all involve cases and petitions before the nation’s highest court. It must be holiday season!

Supreme Court considers how to interpret labor-management agreements: The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Nov. 10 from attorneys for a plastics manufacturer and for a group of retirees over how to interpret a contract that does not clearly define the duration for retiree health benefits. Although the case involves one company’s retirees’ health benefits, the high court’s decision could have broader implications for interpreting collective bargaining agreements in general. (Employment)

Subsidies case puts Obamacare’s fate in justices’ hands yet again: The U.S. Supreme Court will decide this term whether the need-based subsidies that form a key part of the Affordable Care Act should be available in all 50 states or only in those that chose to set up their own health insurance exchanges. The high court agreed Nov. 7 to review a July ruling by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the tax credits nationwide, rejecting arguments that Obamacare makes them available only in states running the optional exchanges that two-thirds of them declined to establish. King et al. v. Burwell et al., No. 14-1158, 759 F.3d 358 (4th Cir. July 22, 2014). (Health Law)

N.Y.C. property owner asks Supreme Court to revive suit over 9/11 contamination: The U.S. Supreme Court should review a 2nd Circuit decision that found the owners and lessees of the World Trade Center were immune from an environmental cleanup lawsuit stemming from the Sept. 11 attacks, according to a developer that spent $26 million to remove asbestos and other “WTC dust” from its nearby property. In a reply brief filed with the high court Nov. 7, Cedar & Washington Associates, which owns a property at 130 Cedar St. in New York, says the appeals court’s decision “threatens to have wide-ranging and profound impacts on issues of national significance ranging from the balance of war power between the executive branch and Congress, to the stability of the insurance and commercial real estate markets.” (Asbestos)