Latest news with #CommerceClause
Axios
09-06-2025
- Business
- Axios
Exclusive: PBM trade group sues Arkansas over pharmacy law
The trade group representing pharmacy benefit managers sued on Monday to overturn a first-in-the-nation state law that prevents them from owning pharmacies in Arkansas. Why it matters: The Pharmaceutical Care Management Association's lawsuit adds to legal challenges to the ownership ban and comes as other states consider similar policies that blame large drug-price middlemen for rising pharmaceutical prices. Navitus Health Solutions, a PBM that's not a member of the trade association, is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit. CVS Health and Cigna, two of the largest PBMs, have filed their own complaints against the law. What they're saying: The law "will disrupt the way patients, especially patients with very complex medical conditions, receive their medication, and it will require consumers in Arkansas to find new pharmacies," said Katie Payne, senior vice president of public affairs and head of advocacy at PCMA. More than 40 retail pharmacies in Arkansas that together fill millions of prescriptions each year will have to cease operation under the law, according to the complaint. Payne said that the law will worsen drug affordability in the state by prohibiting out-of-state companies from running pharmacies that offer lower-cost options. However, PCMA did not have projections on how Arkansas's law will affect drug prices in the state. Zoom in: The lawsuit claims that Arkansas's policy gives preferential treatment to pharmacies based in the state, violating the Constitution's dormant Commerce Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause. It also says the law improperly declares PBMs guilty of antitrust violations and delivers punishment without a trial. "Rather than innovating and attempting to compete with PBM pharmacies on the merits, many independent pharmacies have turned to state lawmakers to manipulate the market with the heavy hand of government, to artificially tip the scales of competition in their favor," the complaint alleges. Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) has said the law is necessary to hold PBMs accountable for anticompetitive actions. Lawmakers at the state and federal level are increasingly questioning large pharmacy benefit managers like CVS Caremark, Express Scripts and Optum Rx's outsize role in the pharmaceutical supply chain and whether they're contributing to high drug prices. Between the lines: PCMA's complaint notes that an earlier version of the bill would have required Walmart — Arkansas's largest company — to close its pharmacies as well, since the company administers its own pharmacy benefits for employees. State legislators amended the policy before it was passed so Walmart would no longer be subject to the law.
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump's tariffs are bad economics, bad politics and unconstitutional
An injunction from the little-known Court of International Trade 'permanently enjoined' President Trump on Wednesday from enforcing many of his tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Neither executive authority nor congressionally delegated power allows the President to institute unprecedented global tariffs using emergency powers, the federal court unanimously ruled. On Thursday, a second federal court also blocked most of Trump's tariffs, including the so-called 'Liberation Day' ones. But just hours later, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily paused the trade court's block. These rulings bring to forefront two constitutional debates in American history: the limits of executive authority and the right of Congress to regulate commerce. The Court of International Trade is correct to limit executive authority. Before a prostrate GOP-led Congress, the judgment reminds elected officials about the sources and legitimacy of their power: the American people and their Constitution. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to 'to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.' Initially enacted to regulate interstate commerce, over the last 250 years the law evolved to increase federal authority over international commerce and restrict one state's ability to regulate commerce in another. Powers reserved to the states, which Republicans traditionally championed, have stood against granting Congress unchecked authority to regulate commerce. Presidents have historically claimed vast executive authority. Before Trump, several presidents employed the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to place economic sanctions on states that threatened U.S or international security. But Trump's use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act for tariffs was unprecedented. In its 49-page ruling, the trade court noted that Congress does not provide the president 'unbounded tariff power' and that the law would only be valid to 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' Trump invoked emergency powers on two grounds: a purported fentanyl import crisis from Canada and Mexico, and the supposed worldwide lack of reciprocity on trade. Empirical evidence on the former, especially in the case of Canada, was spurious, despite the administration's continuing dissembling about fentanyl seizures. On trade reciprocity, the administration concocted a mathematical formula equating lack of reciprocity with trade deficits that makes no sense on economic grounds, let alone the practical and profitable aspects of businesses. Congress ought to have stepped in at this point, but it lacked the spine to act. In fact, the trade court called attention to the 'improper abdication of legislative power.' The trade court heard two cases, a lawsuit led by Oregon from 12 Democratic state attorneys general and another from a group of small businesses. In the former case, states' rights are being asserted by Democratic states arguing that Trump's tariffs stood in the way of provision of services. Conservatives, including Trump, often appeal to states' rights on issues such as religion, guns, schools, abortion, marriage and civil rights. The small business case was led by a wine-making company named VOS Selections, which argued that tariffs would make the business unprofitable. Economists would agree, as did the trade court. While small businesses went to the trade court, big business has been strategically vocal about the harmful impact of tariffs. With neither the businesses nor the states supporting the president's trade policy, one must ask whom the president represents in his trade policy measures. Public polling on trade might provide an answer: die-hard MAGA supporters, who tend to be rural, under-educated and fearful of anything global or cosmopolitan. They are entitled to these fears. The question is if the president can enact trade policy on their behalf. The answer is yes only if one agrees with Trump's political calculations, not the Constitution. At the trade court, Trump's lawyers made a political argument, ostensibly on behalf of the MAGA fearful. They contended that these tariffs were necessary and that the president had the political mandate to negotiate new trade measures with countries around the world. The three-judge panel — made up of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees — unanimously dismissed these political claims. Instead, the panel focused on the legal and constitutional limits on executive power. The immediate appeal to the Circuit Court provided an at least temporary victory, and the case is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court. The White House already has a new argument that unelected judges cannot rule on these matters. Not only does this argument negate constitutional checks on executive power, but the president also continues to overestimate his electoral mandate. An emerging set of conservative champions of executive authority, citing classic sources, almost equate presidential power with the absolute or divine rights of kings. Vice President JD Vance in particular propounds such views. These 'divine right conservatives' now must confront the traditional champions of pragmatic conservatism in America: businesses, consumers, markets and the states. The courts are unlikely to uphold new conservative arguments for unchecked executive power. The Supreme Court has leaned in favor of states' rights on many questions. In the case of trade, the states' rights argument is now the bailiwick of Democratic states. Politics continues to make for strange bedfellows. In the meantime, markets rose after the court ruling Wednesday. J.P. Singh is Distinguished University Professor at Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, and Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow with the Robert Bosch Academy (Berlin). He is co-editor-in-chief of Global Perspectives. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
30-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Trump's tariffs are bad economics, bad politics and unconstitutional
An injunction from the little-known Court of International Trade 'permanently enjoined' President Trump on Wednesday from enforcing many of his tariffs under the 1977 International Economic Emergency Powers Act. Neither executive authority nor congressionally delegated power allows the President to institute unprecedented global tariffs using emergency powers, the federal court unanimously ruled. On Thursday, a second federal court also blocked most of Trump's tariffs, including the so-called 'Liberation Day' ones. But just hours later, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit temporarily paused the trade court's block. These rulings bring to forefront two constitutional debates in American history: the limits of executive authority and the right of Congress to regulate commerce. The Court of International Trade is correct to limit executive authority. Before a prostrate GOP-led Congress, the judgment reminds elected officials about the sources and legitimacy of their power: the American people and their Constitution. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the power to 'to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.' Initially enacted to regulate interstate commerce, over the last 250 years the law evolved to increase federal authority over international commerce and restrict one state's ability to regulate commerce in another. Powers reserved to the states, which Republicans traditionally championed, have stood against granting Congress unchecked authority to regulate commerce. Presidents have historically claimed vast executive authority. Before Trump, several presidents employed the International Economic Emergency Powers Act to place economic sanctions on states that threatened U.S or international security. But Trump's use of the International Economic Emergency Powers Act for tariffs was unprecedented. In its 49-page ruling, the trade court noted that Congress does not provide the president 'unbounded tariff power' and that the law would only be valid to 'deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat with respect to which a national emergency has been declared.' Trump invoked emergency powers on two grounds: a purported fentanyl import crisis from Canada and Mexico, and the supposed worldwide lack of reciprocity on trade. Empirical evidence on the former, especially in the case of Canada, was spurious, despite the administration's continuing dissembling about fentanyl seizures. On trade reciprocity, the administration concocted a mathematical formula equating lack of reciprocity with trade deficits that makes no sense on economic grounds, let alone the practical and profitable aspects of businesses. Congress ought to have stepped in at this point, but it lacked the spine to act. In fact, the trade court called attention to the 'improper abdication of legislative power.' The trade court heard two cases, a lawsuit led by Oregon from 12 Democratic state attorneys general and another from a group of small businesses. In the former case, states' rights are being asserted by Democratic states arguing that Trump's tariffs stood in the way of provision of services. Conservatives, including Trump, often appeal to states' rights on issues such as religion, guns, schools, abortion, marriage and civil rights. The small business case was led by a wine-making company named VOS Selections, which argued that tariffs would make the business unprofitable. Economists would agree, as did the trade court. While small businesses went to the trade court, big business has been strategically vocal about the harmful impact of tariffs. With neither the businesses nor the states supporting the president's trade policy, one must ask whom the president represents in his trade policy measures. Public polling on trade might provide an answer: die-hard MAGA supporters, who tend to be rural, under-educated and fearful of anything global or cosmopolitan. They are entitled to these fears. The question is if the president can enact trade policy on their behalf. The answer is yes only if one agrees with Trump's political calculations, not the Constitution. At the trade court, Trump's lawyers made a political argument, ostensibly on behalf of the MAGA fearful. They contended that these tariffs were necessary and that the president had the political mandate to negotiate new trade measures with countries around the world. The three-judge panel — made up of Reagan, Obama and Trump appointees — unanimously dismissed these political claims. Instead, the panel focused on the legal and constitutional limits on executive power. The immediate appeal to the Circuit Court provided an at least temporary victory, and the case is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court. The White House already has a new argument that unelected judges cannot rule on these matters. Not only does this argument negate constitutional checks on executive power, but the president also continues to overestimate his electoral mandate. An emerging set of conservative champions of executive authority, citing classic sources, almost equate presidential power with the absolute or divine rights of kings. Vice President JD Vance in particular propounds such views. These 'divine right conservatives' now must confront the traditional champions of pragmatic conservatism in America: businesses, consumers, markets and the states. The courts are unlikely to uphold new conservative arguments for unchecked executive power. The Supreme Court has leaned in favor of states' rights on many questions. In the case of trade, the states' rights argument is now the bailiwick of Democratic states. Politics continues to make for strange bedfellows. In the meantime, markets rose after the court ruling Wednesday. J.P. Singh is Distinguished University Professor at Schar School of Policy and Government, George Mason University, and Richard von Weizsäcker Fellow with the Robert Bosch Academy (Berlin). He is co-editor-in-chief of Global Perspectives.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Winston & Strawn Welcomes Michael Kimberly as Co-Chair of the Appellate & Critical Motions Practice
WASHINGTON, May 27, 2025--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Winston & Strawn LLP announced today that Michael Kimberly has joined the firm's Washington, D.C. office as co-chair of the Appellate & Critical Motions Practice. Michael brings a remarkable record of success, having argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and delivered more than 40 appellate arguments in courts across the country, with an overall win record of two for three. In addition to his appellate work, he frequently litigates challenges to federal administrative actions under the Administrative Procedure Act and to state laws and regulations under various provisions of the U.S. Constitution. "I'm thrilled to join Winston's Washington D.C. office and to contribute to the value of its appellate and critical motions practice and litigation capabilities overall," said Michael. "Winston handles an impressive variety of high-stakes litigation cases across a range of legal areas, and I look forward to partnering with its trial teams as well as leveraging my network of clients." "We are very excited to welcome Michael as a leader in our appellate practice," said Litigation Department Co-Chairs Linda Coberly and Tom Melsheimer. "Our clients recognize the value of exceptional appellate advocates. As an accomplished Supreme Court and appellate litigator, Michael will enhance our capabilities in high-profile, mission-critical litigation for our clients across the country. And his skill set is a perfect fit for our D.C. office in particular, given his extensive experience in government-facing and constitutional litigation." Including his work in the district courts, Michael has briefed and argued more than 200 cases covering a wide range of subject matters, including environmental law, the Commerce Clause and related constitutional provisions, various sources of federal preemption, the Medicare Act and related regulations, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the First Amendment, copyright, and the Bankruptcy Code. "As demand continues to grow for appellate lawyers who can shape litigation strategy from the outset, Michael's experience aligns with our vision for the D.C. office," said David Rogers, Washington D.C. office managing partner. "His track record of success and his experience in areas central to our clients in this region, including federal regulatory challenges, taxation, ERISA, and healthcare, will be instrumental in strengthening our presence." Winston & Strawn LLP is an international law firm with 14 offices in North America, South America, and Europe. More information about the firm is available at View source version on Contacts Michael Goodwinmgoodwin@ 646-502-3595 Sneha Satishssatish@ 646-502-3556 Sign in to access your portfolio
Business Wire
27-05-2025
- Business
- Business Wire
Winston & Strawn Welcomes Michael Kimberly as Co-Chair of the Appellate & Critical Motions Practice
WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Winston & Strawn LLP announced today that Michael Kimberly has joined the firm's Washington, D.C. office as co-chair of the Appellate & Critical Motions Practice. Michael brings a remarkable record of success, having argued nine cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and delivered more than 40 appellate arguments in courts across the country, with an overall win record of two for three. In addition to his appellate work, he frequently litigates challenges to federal administrative actions under the Administrative Procedure Act and to state laws and regulations under various provisions of the U.S. Constitution. 'I'm thrilled to join Winston's Washington D.C. office and to contribute to the value of its appellate and critical motions practice and litigation capabilities overall,' said Michael. 'Winston handles an impressive variety of high-stakes litigation cases across a range of legal areas, and I look forward to partnering with its trial teams as well as leveraging my network of clients.' 'We are very excited to welcome Michael as a leader in our appellate practice,' said Litigation Department Co-Chairs Linda Coberly and Tom Melsheimer. 'Our clients recognize the value of exceptional appellate advocates. As an accomplished Supreme Court and appellate litigator, Michael will enhance our capabilities in high-profile, mission-critical litigation for our clients across the country. And his skill set is a perfect fit for our D.C. office in particular, given his extensive experience in government-facing and constitutional litigation.' Including his work in the district courts, Michael has briefed and argued more than 200 cases covering a wide range of subject matters, including environmental law, the Commerce Clause and related constitutional provisions, various sources of federal preemption, the Medicare Act and related regulations, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, the First Amendment, copyright, and the Bankruptcy Code. 'As demand continues to grow for appellate lawyers who can shape litigation strategy from the outset, Michael's experience aligns with our vision for the D.C. office,' said David Rogers, Washington D.C. office managing partner. 'His track record of success and his experience in areas central to our clients in this region, including federal regulatory challenges, taxation, ERISA, and healthcare, will be instrumental in strengthening our presence.' Winston & Strawn LLP is an international law firm with 14 offices in North America, South America, and Europe. More information about the firm is available at
