Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Novo Nordisk Inc., et al. v. Robert F. Kennedy, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, No. 24-2510 · judgment October 6, 2025


Certiorari denied · May 18, 2026
Pre-decision estimate: 7% cert probability (95% interval 4%–12%)

Before the decision, about 1.8× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Third Circuit decision below, counsel with five or more prior petitions here, and a petition filed soon after the judgment below.

Questions presented

The Inflation Reduction Act grants the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) unprecedented and unfettered authority to impose price controls on pharmaceutical products. As interpreted by the government, the statute includes no enforceable standards or procedures to guide and constrain CMS’s price-setting decisions; authorizes the agency to implement price controls by imposing new binding rules at whim, unconstrained by the Administrative Procedure Act’s procedural and judicial review requirements; and forces manufacturers to express the view that any price CMS dictates is the “maximum fair price.” Although the statute levels an enterprise-crippling penalty on any manufacturer that does not comply, CMS claims that no constitutional constraints apply because the agency says it will not enforce the statute’s multi-billiondollar penalties if a manufacturer stops selling all of its products to the more than 140 million individuals who participate in Medicare and Medicaid. The questions presented are:

  1. Is the separation of powers violated when an agency exercises sweeping price-setting and rulemaking authority with no constraints to ensure that it acts reasonably and within lawful bounds?

  2. Is the federal government permitted to sidestep all constitutional constraints in the course of dictating the price of pharmaceutical sales made to a huge segment of the American population when such pricing is dictated in connection with a governmentfunded financial-assistance program, like Medicare?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Ashley C. Parrish
King & Spalding

For respondent
D. John Sauer
Solicitor General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences

Amicus briefs
2 cert-stage

Proceedings

  1. May 18 2026
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Apr 28 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/14/2026.
  3. Apr 23 2026
    Rescheduled.
  4. Apr 15 2026
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/1/2026.
  5. Apr 14 2026
    Reply of petitioners Novo Nordisk Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
  6. Mar 30 2026
    Brief of Robert F. Kennedy, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. in opposition not accepted for filing. (To be resubmitted - April 03, 2026)
  7. Mar 30 2026
    Brief of respondents Robert F. Kennedy, Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al. in opposition filed. (Resubmitted)
  8. Feb 19 2026
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including March 30, 2026.
  9. Feb 18 2026
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from February 27, 2026 to March 30, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
  10. Jan 28 2026
    Brief amicus curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America filed.
  11. Jan 28 2026
    Brief amicus curiae of Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. filed.
  12. Jan 23 2026
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including February 27, 2026.
  13. Jan 22 2026
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 28, 2026 to February 27, 2026, submitted to The Clerk.
  14. Dec 22 2025
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 28, 2026)