October Term 2016 · Docket 16-149
Does federal law block state bans on insurance subrogation?
Coventry Health Care argues federal law preempts Missouri's ban on subrogation. Nevils argues state law remains valid.
Verified source milestones
- — 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.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Estrada argued the state rule is wrong.
Mr. Wessler argued for cautious interpretation of preemption.
Mr. Tripp argued OPM regulations answer the question.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 22-30 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 22-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 14-14 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 14-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 32-50 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 32-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 14-20 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 14-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 16-1 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 16-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 50-12
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of federal preemption in health insurance.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 16-1 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 16-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-48
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 1, 2017.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
What each side wants
Coventry wants the Court to strike down the state ban.
Nevils wants the Court to keep the state ban in force.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 16-1 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 16-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-48
What each side says
Coventry argues federal law preempts state subrogation bans.
Nevils argues state law remains valid under federal statutes.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 16-1 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 16-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-48
What the justices asked
Justice Ginsburg asked if states can regulate these carriers.
Justice Kagan asked how the Court should view prior precedent.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 22-30 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 22-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 14-14 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 14-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 32-50 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 32-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 14-20 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 14-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 50-12
Why it matters
This dispute defines the boundary between state and federal insurance power.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 16-1 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 16-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-48
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 Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 28-30 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 28-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 22-30 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 22-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 14-14 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 14-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 32-50 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 32-50
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 14-20 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 14-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 50-4 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 50-4
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 20-28 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 20-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 20-46 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 20-46
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 50-12 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 50-12
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 16-1 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 16-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 48-6 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 48-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 23, lines 16-1 — Transcript, file page 23, lines 16-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 20-48 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 20-48
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.