-
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 […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That Due Process Does Not Bar A State—In Some Circumstances—From Requiring Corporations To Consent To Otherwise-Impermissible Personal Jurisdiction As A Condition Of Doing Business In A State
Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., No. 21-1168 Today, a fractured Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause does not bar a state from requiring an out-of-state corporation to consent to be sued in the state as a condition of doing business in the state, at least for some claims. Background: The Due Process Clause of the […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That Arbitration Appeals Automatically Stay Proceedings in District Court
Case Name and Number: Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski, No. 22-105 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that a district court is required to stay all proceedings while an interlocutory appeal of the denial of a motion to compel arbitration is pending. Background: Section 16(a) of the Federal Arbitration Act authorizes litigants […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That the Federal Government May Intervene to Dismiss False Claims Act Cases Even When the Government Initially Declined to Intervene in the Case
United States ex rel. Polanksy v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., No. 21-1052 Today, the Supreme Court held, in an 8-1 decision, that the United States can move to dismiss a claim brought by a private party under the False Claims Act (FCA), even when the United States initially declined to intervene and take over the case. Background: The FCA […]
-
Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Protections for Parodies of Trademarks
Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, No. 22-148 Today, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that a dog toy parodying the Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle does not receive special protections against trademark claims. The Court rejected arguments that the humorous use of a trademark always receives heightened First Amendment-related protection from infringement claims […]
-
Supreme Court Limits Scope of Direct Listing Suits
Case Name and Number: Slack Technologies, LLC v. Pirani, No. 22-200 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that a shareholder suing a company under Section 11(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 over misrepresentations in a registration statement must allege that he purchased securities issued pursuant to that statement. The Court […]
-
Supreme Court Clarifies Knowledge Requirement for False Claims Act Suits
United States ex rel. Schutte v. Supervalu Inc., No. 21-1326 Today, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that a defendant knowingly makes a false claim under the False Claims Act (FCA) if it has the subjective belief that its claim is false. The Court rejected the argument that the defendant would not be liable if a […]
-
Supreme Court Holds Takings Clause Prohibits States from Keeping Property Sale Proceeds That Exceed Debt Owed by Property Owner
Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166 Today, the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to hold that, under the Constitution’s Takings Clause, when a government initiates a sale of property in order to satisfy the property owner’s debt (such as unpaid taxes), and the sale proceeds exceed the amount of the debt, the government must provide a means for […]
-
Supreme Court Limits Reach of Clean Water Act
Case Name and Number: Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 21-454 Introduction: Today, in a majority opinion joined by five Justices, the Supreme Court adopted a narrow reading of the EPA’s regulatory authority under the Clean Water Act. Rejecting the EPA’s much more expansive “significant nexus” test, the majority held that wetlands under the Clean […]
-
Supreme Court Rejects Fair Use Defense in Warhol Copyright Case
Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, No. 21-869 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held in a 7-2 decision that adding a new expression or aesthetic to a copyrighted work is insufficient to establish a new “purpose and character” for the “fair use” defense to copyright infringement. Background: Under the fair use doctrine, a person may […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That Patent Enablement Requirement Applies to Full Scope of Broad Genus Patents
Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, No. 21-757 Introduction: Today, in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that Amgen Inc.’s patents for an entire genus of antibodies did not satisfy the Patent Act’s enablement requirement, because those patents did not enable others to make the full range of claimed antibodies. Rejecting Amgen’s argument that it had provided a roadmap sufficient […]
-
Supreme Court Holds Constitutional Challenges to Agency Investigations and Adjudications Can Proceed As Separate Actions in Federal Court
Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 21-86, and Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cochran, No. 21-1239 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court voted 9-0 to allow constitutional challenges to federal agencies’ investigatory and adjudicatory authority to be brought as separate lawsuits in federal court before the agency adjudication has concluded—and, in some contexts, as […]
-
Supreme Court Limits EPA’s Power To Regulate Greenhouse Gas Emissions From Power Plants
Case Name and Number: West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 20-1530 Introduction: Today, the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that EPA lacks authority under the Clean Air Act to limit greenhouse gas emissions from power plants through “generation shifting,” i.e., increasing the use of cleaner energy sources like wind and solar and […]