Court Mens Rea Statute 
JURIST
FEBRUARY 27, 2025
Right on Crime contends that “there has been an explosion of criminal laws passed by Congress and promulgated by federal executive agencies” where mens rea requirements have been intentionally omitted.
FDA Law Blog
AUGUST 4, 2022
Kirschenbaum — In a recent decision, the Second Circuit upheld the HHS Office of the Inspector General (OIG)’s position that Pfizer’s proposed copay assistance program for its high-cost heart treatment would violate the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS). The Second Circuit’s Interpretation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. Pfizer, Inc.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 28, 2022
Share With a majority opinion that will be one of Justice Stephen Breyer’s last for the Supreme Court, the court on Monday ruled 9-0 that two alleged opioids “pill mill” doctors could not be convicted absent a jury finding that they subjectively believed they were wrongfully dispensing pills. The case, Ruan v.
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 24, 2021
United States , the Supreme Court analyzed the Armed Career Criminal Act ’s force clause or elements clause. In this case, the court had to decide whether the term “violent felony” includes crimes committed with a reckless state of mind. The case came to the court after Charles Borden Jr. Share In Borden v.
FDA Law Blog
NOVEMBER 6, 2022
Gaulkin — We previously blogged about Pfizer’s copay assistance lawsuit, which sought to challenge HHS’s interpretation of the Federal health care program anti-kickback statute (AKS) and position that the company’s proposed copay assistance program would violate the AKS. The Second Circuit’s Interpretation of the AKS and its Mens Rea Element.
SCOTUSBlog
MARCH 2, 2022
For nearly 90 minutes on Tuesday, the court grappled with the question of whether good faith is a defense for doctors criminally prosecuted for unlawful distribution of controlled substances. In the end, it was not clear what direction the court is likely to take. Kavanaugh compared the facts at issue to an older case, Morrissette v.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JULY 19, 2023
Supreme Court held that to establish that a statement is a “true threat” unprotected by the First Amendment, the state must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the statements’ threatening nature, based on a showing no more demanding than recklessness. The Colorado Supreme Court denied review. In Counterman v.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
132 
Let's personalize your content