Supreme Court Denies UT’s Bid for Med Students FICA Refund
Client Alert | 1 min read | 05.05.15
The Supreme Court denied without comment the University of Texas' petition to recoup $11 million in Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes paid with respect to medical residents, letting stand a Fifth Circuit decision denying the refunds because the residents were not "students."
UT's argument was based on Texas's "§ 218 agreement" with the Social Security Agency (SSA), pursuant to which Texas opted into the Social Security system for its employees. The § 218 agreement excludes services performed by students, and therefore such services are exempt from FICA tax. Applying a contractual approach to Texas's § 218 agreement, the Fifth Circuit noted that at the time Texas entered into the agreement, the SSA clearly stated its position that medical residents did not fall within the meaning of the term "student" for purposes of the student exclusion. There was no evidence presented that Texas had a different understanding.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, UT argued that the Fifth's opinion conflicted with a similar Eighth Circuit case, Minnesota v. Apfel, which potentially caused a difference in law between the Eighth Circuit and the rest of the country. After Apfel, however, the IRS adopted regulations stating that a school employee who works 40 or more hours per week is not exempt from FICA taxes. Those regulations are applicable for services performed on or after April 1, 2005.
Crowell & Moring's Education Group will continue to monitor cases and legislation important to post-secondary education institutions, ensuring awareness of any changes.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
