October Term 2005 · Docket 05-200

Does a federal employee health plan contract create a federal claim?

The dispute centers on whether a private insurer must pay a federal employee for medical costs after a tort settlement.

Official caption
Empire HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    The insurer's counsel argued the case arises under federal law because it enforces a federal government contract.

    The employee's counsel argued the contract rights are private, not federal, under existing legal inquiries.

    Chief Justice Roberts probed the validity of the legal authority cited by the insurer's counsel.

    Justice Ginsburg questioned whether the statute actually requires a federal forum for these reimbursement claims.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests the legal nature of a federal employee health plan contract. The core issue is whether enforcing this specific contract constitutes a federal claim. The outcome determines which court system handles these reimbursement disputes.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on April 25, 2006.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The insurer wants the Supreme Court to reverse the dismissal and allow its federal claim to proceed.

The employee wants the Supreme Court to affirm the dismissal and keep the case out of federal court.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The insurer argues the contract enforces federal government duties, creating a federal claim under federal law.

The employee argues the contract is a private agreement, so the claim lacks a federal basis.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Roberts asked if the legal authority cited by the insurer has ever been applied in twenty years.

Chief Justice Roberts questioned why a private employee relationship qualifies as a government contract for these purposes.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the jurisdiction for federal employee health plan reimbursement disputes. It clarifies whether private insurers can sue in federal court to recover costs from tort settlements. The ruling shapes the legal landscape for federal benefits administration and private contract enforcement.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON