-
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 […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That An Individual Need Not Work In The Transportation Industry To Qualify For The Section 1 Exemption To The Federal Arbitration Act
Case Name and Number: Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park Street, LLC, No. 23-51 Today, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that an individual need not work in the transportation industry to fall within the exemption from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) protection in Section 1 of the statute. The Court decided only that […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That Corporate Whistleblowers Do Not Have To Prove Retaliatory Intent
Murray v. UBS Securities, LLC, No. 22-660 Today, the Supreme Court unanimously held that the whistleblower protections in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act do not require an employee alleging an unfavorable personnel action to establish that the employer acted with retaliatory intent. Background: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act prohibits publicly traded companies from “discharg[ing], demot[ing], suspend[ing], threaten[ing], harass[ing], or in any other manner […]
-
Supreme Court Strikes Down Biden Administration’s Student Loan Debt-Forgiveness Plan
Biden v. Nebraska, No. 22-506 Today, the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that the Secretary of Education lacked the authority to cancel billions of dollars in student loan debt. Background: The HEROES Act authorizes the Secretary of Education to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision” during a “national emergency.” 20 U.S.C. § 1098bb(a)(1). The Secretary […]
-
Supreme Court’s Affirmative Action Decision Carries Potential Implications For Businesses
Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President And Fellows of Harvard College, No. 20-1199; Students For Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, No. 21-707 Today, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision striking down affirmative action admissions policies in higher education as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. Although the Court’s decision does not apply to private employers, […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That Employers May Avoid Their Obligation To Accommodate Employees’ Religious Beliefs Only If Accommodation Would Impose “Substantial Increased Costs”
Case Name and Number: Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that employers covered by Title VII must provide accommodations for employees’ religious beliefs unless doing so would result in “substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of [the employer’s] particular business.” The Court rejected decisions […]
-
Supreme Court Holds Lanham Act’s Prohibitions Of Trademark Infringement Do Not Apply Extraterritorially
Case Name and Number: Abitron Austria GmbH v. Hetronic International, Inc., No. 21-1043 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held that two provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting trademark infringement do not apply extraterritorially and that infringement is domestic, and therefore actionable under the Lanham Act, only if the “use in commerce” occurred domestically. Background: The […]