-
Supreme Court Rejects Non-Delegation Challenge to FCC’s Universal Service Fund
Case Name and Number: FCC v. Consumers’ Research, No. 24-354 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that Congress’s delegation of authority to the FCC to set the rate for contributions to, and oversee disbursements from, the Universal Service Fund – as well as the FCC’s sub-delegation of authority to a private […]
-
Supreme Court lets fuel producers challenge California’s limits on car emissions and production of gas-powered vehicles
Case Name and Number: Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA., No. 24-7 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that fuel producers not directly regulated by California vehicle emissions standards have Article III standing to challenge EPA’s approval of those standards. Background:. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) granted California a Clean Air […]
-
Supreme Court holds that Hobbs Act does not bind courts adjudicating private litigation or government enforcement proceedings to an agency’s interpretation of a statute
Case Name and Number: McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226 Today, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Hobbs Act’s provisions governing judicial review of actions by certain federal agencies do not require district courts to adopt an agency’s interpretation of a statute when adjudicating a private lawsuit or government enforcement proceeding. Instead, […]
-
Supreme Court Recognizes Broad Ability Of Persons “Adversely Affected” To Sue
Case Name and Number: FDA v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co., No. 23-1187 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held that when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) denies a manufacturer’s application to market tobacco products, a seller of those products can challenge the denial as a “person adversely affected” by it. Background: The Family Smoking […]
-
Supreme Court Narrows Agency Environmental Reviews
Case Name and Number: Seven Cty. Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle Cty., No. 23-975 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous 8-0 decision that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require agencies evaluating the environmental impacts of their actions to consider the effects of other projects separate in time or space. Background: […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That RICO Plaintiffs May Recover for Business or Property Loss Even When the Loss Results from Personal Injury
Case Name and Number: Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, No. 23-365 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), allows plaintiffs to seek treble damages for business or property losses even if those losses resulted from an antecedent personal injury. Background: […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That Lower Courts Failed To Properly Analyze Facial Challenges To Laws Regulating Social Media Companies’ Content Moderation – And Affirms First Amendment Protection For Content-Moderation Choices
Moody v. Net Choice, LLC, No. 22-277 Today, the Supreme Court held that the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits did not employ the proper analysis in assessing a facial challenge to Texas and Florida laws seeking to regulate social media platforms’ content-moderation policies. The Court went on to explain the First Amendment principles that lower courts […]
-
Supreme Court Expands Time To Challenge Agency Regulations
Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, No. 22-1008 Today, the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that the six-year time limit to challenge a federal agency regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not start to run until the plaintiff is injured by the regulation. Background: In […]
-
Supreme Court Overrules Chevron
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451; Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, No. 22-1219 Today, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision overruling Chevron, the decision holding that federal courts should defer to an administrative agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers. Going forward, courts are required to exercise their […]
-
Supreme Court Rejects Opioid Settlement, Holding That A Bankruptcy Court Cannot Discharge Claims Against A Non-Debtor Without The Consent Of Affected Claimants
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., No. 23-124 Today, the Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow a bankruptcy court to discharge claims against a non-debtor without the consent of affected claimants. Background: Purdue Pharma developed and produced OxyContin, an opioid. In 2019, the company filed for bankruptcy, in part due to […]
-
Supreme Court Blocks EPA’s Cross-State Air Pollution Plan
Ohio v. EPA, No. 23A349 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court issued a 5-4 decision staying an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) plan to reduce air pollution that crosses state lines. The stay prevents the EPA from enforcing the plan while the case proceeds in the D.C. Circuit. Background: The Clean Air Act tasks the EPA with […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That SEC In-House Courts Cannot Adjudicate Enforcement Actions Seeking Civil Penalties For Securities Fraud Violations
SEC v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859 Introduction: In a decision with significant, wide-ranging consequences for federal agency enforcement authority, the Supreme Court today held that the Seventh Amendment bars the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from using in-house administrative adjudications to impose civil penalties for securities-fraud violations. Those actions must be brought in federal court and […]
-
Supreme Court Upholds Repatriation Tax On Foreign Earnings
Moore v. United States, No. 22-800 Yesterday, the Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that Congress’s one-time tax on foreign earnings is constitutional. Background: In 2017, Congress created the Mandatory Repatriation Tax (MRT), a one-time tax on the accumulated income of U.S.-controlled foreign corporations. Two taxpayers who invested in U.S.-controlled foreign corporations challenged the […]
-
Supreme Court Rejects First Amendment Challenge to Restriction on Trademarking a Living Person’s Name
Headline: Supreme Court rejects First Amendment challenge to restriction on trademarking a living person’s name Case Name and Number: Vidal v. Elster, No. 22-704 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Lanham Act’s restriction on trademarking a living person’s name without consent did not violate the First Amendment. Background: A provision of the […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That A “Nuanced” “Significant Interference” Standard Determines Whether Federal Law Preempts Application Of State Consumer Laws To National Banks
Case Name and Number: Cantero v. Bank of America, N.A., No. 22-529 Introduction: Yesterday, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the Second Circuit applied the wrong standard in analyzing whether New York’s interest-on-escrow law is preempted by federal law. The Court held that the relevant standard—from Barnett Bank of Marian County, N.A. v. Nelson, 517 […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That Courts, Not Arbitrators, Must Decide Which Contract Controls When Parties Enter Into Two Contracts That Arguably Conflict On Whether An Arbitrator Or Court Decides If A Dispute Is Arbitrable
Case Name and Number: Coinbase, Inc. v. Suski, No. 23-3 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that courts, not arbitrators, must decide which contract controls when the parties have entered into two contracts—one sending arbitrability issues to an arbitrator, and the other sending arbitrability to the courts—and the parties dispute whether […]
-
Supreme Court Upholds CFPB Funding Structure
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Ass’ns of America, No. 22-448 Today, the Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that the funding structure for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is constitutional. Background: Congress funds most federal agencies through annual appropriations. In contrast, Congress funds the CFPB through the Dodd-Frank Act, which authorizes the CFPB […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That The Federal Arbitration Act Mandates A Stay Of Litigation When A Court Grants A Motion To Compel Arbitration
Case Name and Number: Smith v. Spizzirri, No. 22-1218 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that Section 3 of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) mandates a stay of litigation, and does not permit courts to dismiss the case instead, when the dispute filed as part of a lawsuit in court is […]
-
Supreme Court sides with Texas property owners but declines to address whether the Takings Clause creates a cause of action
DeVillier v. Texas, No. 22-913 Today, the Supreme Court unanimously held that, because Texas landowners could assert a Takings Clause claim through a cause of action created by Texas law, the Court would not address whether the Takings Clause creates its own independent cause of action. Background: To deal with flooding, Texas built several barriers along a highway; the […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That “Pure Omissions” Alone Do Not Support Certain Securities Fraud Claims
Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, L.P., No. 22-1165 Today, the Supreme Court unanimously held that “pure omissions” from a disclosure, without more, cannot support a claim under SEC Rule 10b-5(b) that a company omitted material facts in connection with a securities transaction. Background: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5(b) makes it unlawful to […]
