Humana Inc., et al. v. Mary Forsyth et al. (525 U.S. 299)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided January 20, 1999 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 525 U.S. 299 · 119 S. Ct. 710
- Decided
- January 20, 1999
- Term
- October Term 1998
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Ginsburg
- Issue area
- Federalism
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Ginsburg delivered the opinion of the Court. This ease concerns regulation of the business of insurance by the States, as secured by the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 59 Stat. 33, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1011 et seq., and the extent to which federal legislation, specifically, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U. S. C. § 1961 et seq., is compatible with state regulation. The controversy before us stems from a scheme employed by petitioner Humana Health Insurance of Nevada, Inc. (Humana Insurance), a group health insurer, to gain discounts for hospital services which the insurer did not disclose and pass on to its policy beneficiaries. The scheme is alleged to violate both Nevada law and RICO. Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the federal legislation may be applied if it does not “invalidate, impair, or supersede” the State’s regulation. 15 U. S. C. § 1012(b). The federal law at issue, RICO, does not proscribe conduct that the State’s laws governing insurance permit. But the federal and state remedial regimes differ. Both provide a private right of action. RICO authorizes treble damages; Nevada law permits recovery of compensatory and punitive damages. We hold that RICO can be applied in this ease in harmony with the State’s regulation. When federal law is applied in aid or enhancement of state regulation, and does not frustrate any declared…
Excerpt of a 24,776-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.