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 | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
