On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration another significant victory in its attempts to defund NIH-sponsored research. In a 5-4 decision, the justices paused the June 16 order of U.S. District Judge William Young to restore funding for hundreds of canceled NIH research grants focusing on gender and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). The funding had first been cut through a series of executive orders shortly after President Donald Trump resumed power in January.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration another significant victory in its attempts to defund NIH-sponsored research. In a 5-4 decision, the justices paused the June 16 order of U.S. District Judge William Young to restore funding for hundreds of canceled NIH research grants focusing on gender and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI). The funding had first been cut through a series of executive orders shortly after President Donald Trump resumed power in January.
The U.S. Supreme Court preserved the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force coverage mandate that requires payers to cover certain preventive services at no cost to patients in a 6-3 ruling. That’s very good news for many diagnostics companies including Exact Sciences Corp. and Guardant Health Inc. as well as companies that manufacture HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PReP) medications such as Gilead Sciences Inc.
U.S. law allows whistleblowers to file suit for violations the False Claims Act, but the legality of these qui tam relators under the Appointments Clause is under intense scrutiny thanks to a case heard in Florida district court.
Litigation against companies in the life sciences has far too often covered those who were not injured by the device or drug, but there are signs that this tide is shifting.
As if the uncertainties surrounding an incoming administration weren’t enough, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision and a potential new avenue of liability for drug and device manufacturers could bring an added level of unpredictability to the sector for 2025.
As if the uncertainties surrounding an incoming administration weren’t enough, a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision and a potential new avenue of liability for drug and device manufacturers could bring an added level of unpredictability to the sector for 2025.
In the recently cast shadow of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision that unraveled Chevron deference for federal agencies, the FTC’s broad rule banning noncompete employment clauses is on shaky ground. The first tremor hit July 3 when the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas temporarily enjoined the FTC Noncompete Rule that is scheduled to go into effect Sept. 4 on the grounds that the agency overstepped its authority.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the FDA already are getting a glimpse of the post-Chevron world and how the Supreme Court’s June 28 unwinding of the 40-year-old Chevron deference could rein in agency policies that defy Congress’ expressed intent.
