SquirePattonBoggs
FEBRUARY 14, 2023
2022), the Sixth Circuit read Borden as requiring a purposeful or knowing mens rea for offenses deemed violent felony predicate offenses. As the Sixth Circuit explained, Patterson “did not consider, as Borden now requires, whether the offense’s force element has a mens rea greater than recklessness.” Butts , 40 F.4th
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
In arguing a subjective standard is required, the charged doctors and other advocates emphasized longstanding rules about the presumption of mens rea (a guilty state of mind) for criminal offenses. A mens rea requirement, the opinion holds, is essential to separate physicians’ “socially beneficial conduct” from criminal conduct.
SCOTUSBlog
JUNE 24, 2021
The ACCA, in Borden’s view, required a higher culpable state of mind, or mens rea , than recklessness. A mens rea of purpose equates to a consciously desirable outcome. Kagan stressed that the relevant statute in Voisine did not include the critical “against the person” phrasing applicable to the ACCA and in Leocal.
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.
Constitutional Law Reporter
JULY 19, 2023
18–3–602(1)(c), a Colorado statute making it unlawful to “[r]epeatedly. It concluded that a recklessness standard— i.e., a showing that a person “consciously disregard[ed] a substantial [and unjustifiable] risk that [his] conduct will cause harm to another,”—is the appropriate mens rea. Counterman’s messages put C.W.
SCOTUSBlog
MARCH 2, 2022
Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett pressed both sides on where the standard for the exception comes from, noting that the phrases “good faith” and “honest effort” appear nowhere in the statute and that the entirety of the exception, which likewise does not specify an intent standard, is the product of regulation.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
59 
Let's personalize your content