Case Explained: SLIGO CREEK CENTER v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES; ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services —————————— AMERICAN HEALTH CARE ASSOCIATION; THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR ASSISTED LIVING Amici Supporting

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-05 The Fourth Circuit denied the petition for review of an administrative order imposing civil monetary penalties on a Medicare-participating nursing home for failing to comply with infection control regulations regarding tuberculosis testing and treatment. The court held that the Seventh Amendment does not guarantee a jury trial in this context because the enforcement action falls within the “public rights” exception to Article III jurisdiction, as established under the Supreme Court’s decision in *SEC v. Jarkesy* and the precedent of *Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission*. The court applied a two-step analysis: first assuming the penalty implicated the Seventh Amendment, and second determining whether the public rights doctrine applied. The court concluded that the HHS enforcement action is not analogous to common law causes of action like fraud or breach of contract (which would require a jury trial under *Granfinanciera*), but rather resembles the novel statutory scheme in *Atlas Roofing*. The court reasoned that the obligations at issue arose from a voluntary government program (Medicare) and were defined by detailed, technical federal regulations unknown to the common law. Unlike common law torts or contracts, these statutory duties do not require proof of actual injury or damages to the government, but rather focus on compliance with regulatory standards designed to protect public health. Consequently, the court affirmed that Congress may assign the adjudication of these public rights enforcement actions to an administrative agency without violating the Seventh Amendment. The court further rejected petitioner’s substantive challenges, finding that the Department of Health and Human Services’ determination of noncompliance was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. As a result, the petition for review is denied, leaving the administrative penalty in place. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.