-
Supreme Court Punts on Standard for ERISA Stock-Drop Litigation
Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, No. 18-1165 Introduction: Today, in a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court decided not to reach the merits of a much-anticipated case about ERISA stock-drop litigation. Instead, the Court remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, so that that court can […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That Partisan Gerrymanders are Unreviewable Under the Political Question Doctrine
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422 Lamone v. Benisek, No. 18-726 Today, the Supreme Court, by a vote of 5-4, held in two consolidated cases that challenges to partisan gerrymanders present political questions that are not subject to review in federal court. Background: Both cases involved challenges to extreme partisan gerrymanders. In Rucho, Republican legislators […]
-
Supreme Court Upholds, Narrows Deference To Agency Interpretations Of Regulations
Kisor v. Wilkie, No. 18-15 In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court decided not to overrule the doctrine of Auer deference, which requires courts to defer to agency interpretations of their own ambiguous regulations. Instead of jettisoning Auer entirely, the Court emphasized the preconditions that must be satisfied before deference plays its tie-breaking role. Background: Petitioner […]
-
Supreme Court Rules That Lanham Act’s Prohibition On “Immoral Or Scandalous” Trademarks Is Unconstitutional
Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18-302 Today, the Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that the Lanham Act’s prohibition of ”immoral or scandalous” trademarks violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. Background: In Matal v. Tam, 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017), the Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s ban on the registration by the […]
-
Supreme Court Rules That Punitive Damages Are Unavailable In Connection With Unseaworthiness Claims
Dutra Group v. Batterton, No. 18-266 Today, the Supreme Court held, by a 6-3 vote, that injured seamen may not recover punitive damages in connection with a claim that the vessel on which they were injured was unseaworthy. Background: Seamen who have been injured while working on a vessel may pursue two overlapping, but not entirely […]
-
Supreme Court Rejects “Substantial Competitive Harm” Requirement For Exemption 4 Of FOIA
Food Marketing Institute v. Argus Leader Media, No. 18-481 Today, the Supreme Court held by a 6-3 vote that Exemption 4 of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which protects from disclosure “confidential” private-sector “commercial or financial information,” does not require a showing that disclosure of the information would cause “substantial competitive harm.” Background: Under […]
-
Supreme Court Rules That Takings Plaintiffs Do Not Need To Litigate Their Claims In State Court In Order To Ripen The Takings Claim For A Federal Court Section 1983 Action
Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, No. 17-647 Today, the Supreme Court ruled by a 5-4 majority that a property owner does not have to litigate a state claim for just compensation through the state court system before bringing a federal takings claim under Section 1983. Background: In Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, […]
-
Supreme Court Rules That States May Not Tax Undistributed Trust Income Based Solely On In-State Residence Of Trust Beneficiaries
North Carolina Department of Revenue v. Kaestner Family Trust, No. 18-457 Today, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from taxing undistributed trust income based only on the in-state residency of trust beneficiaries. Background: A North Carolina statute imposes a tax on any trust income that “is […]
-
Supreme Court Declines To Answer Whether District Court Is Bound To Follow Federal Communications Commission’s Interpretation Of The Telephone Consumer Protection Act
Today, the Supreme Court returned to the lower courts the question whether a 2006 order by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is binding on the district court in this case, holding that resolution of that question may depend on the resolution of two preliminary questions: (1) whether the order is the equivalent of a “legislative […]
-
Supreme Court Holds that Private Entity Operating Public-Access Television Channel Is Not A Government Actor Subject to the First Amendment
Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck, No. 17-1702 Today, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that a private entity appointed by a municipality to operate public-access television channels under a city-issued cable license is not a government actor subject to the First Amendment. Background: Pursuant to New York law, New York City granted […]
-
State Wage-and-Hour Law Stops at the Outer Continental Shelf
Parker Drilling Management Services v. Newton, No. 18-389 A unanimous Supreme Court held today that federal rather than state wage-and-hour law governs employment on the Outer Continental Shelf. Background: After the Supreme Court held many years ago that the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) was federal rather than state territory, Congress passed the Outer Continental Shelf […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That the U.S. Government May Not Seek Review Of Patents By Patent Trial And Appeal Board
Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, No. 17-1594 In a 6-3 decision issued this morning, the Supreme Court reversed a decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and held that the U.S. Government is not a “person” within the meaning of the America Invests Act of 2011 and that therefore […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That A Creditor Cannot Be Held In Contempt For Violating A Bankruptcy Discharge Order If There Is A “Fair Ground Of Doubt” As To The Lawfulness Of The Creditor’s Conduct
Taggart v. Lorenzen, No. 18-489 Today, the Supreme Court held 9-0 that a creditor cannot be held in contempt of court for violating a bankruptcy discharge order if there is a “fair ground of doubt” as to whether the order barred the creditor’s conduct. Background: Under the Bankruptcy Code, a bankruptcy discharge order bars creditors from […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That Third-Party Counterclaim Defendants May Not Remove State-Court Cases To Federal Court Under The Class Action Fairness Act
Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, No. 17-1471 Today, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that a third-party counterclaim defendant may not remove a state-court case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Background: Nearly eighty years ago, the Supreme Court held in Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets that […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That Whether The FDA Would Have Rejected A Proposed Labeling Change Is A Question Of Law, Not Fact
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, No. 17-290 Today, the Supreme Court unanimously held that whether the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would have rejected a change to the labeling of a prescription drug is a question of law to be decided by courts rather than a question of fact to be decided by […]
-
Supreme Court Rules That A Debtor’s Rejection Of A Trademark Licensing Contract Under Section 365 Of The Bankruptcy Code Does Not Rescind The Contract
Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, No. 17-1657 Today, the Supreme Court held in an 8-1 decision that when a debtor, acting under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, rejects a contract licensing its trademarks, the contract is not rescinded and the debtor thus cannot revoke the trademark license. Background: Section 365 of the […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That Relator Who Brings False Claims Act Suit May Benefit From Longer Limitations Period Even When Government Declines To Intervene
Today, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a private relator may bring a False Claims Act lawsuit up to three years after the responsible “official of the United States” has actual or constructive knowledge of the relevant facts, as long as the suit is not filed more than ten years after the violation was committed. […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That App Purchasers May Sue Apple For Allegedly Monopolizing The Market For iPhone Apps
Apple Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204 Today, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that consumers who purchased apps on Apple’s App Store have standing to sue Apple under the Sherman Act for allegedly monopolizing the market for iPhone apps. Background: Under the so-called “Illinois Brick” rule, announced by the Supreme Court in 1977, only […]
-
Supreme Court Holds That The Federal Arbitration Act Requires More Than Ambiguity To Authorize Class Arbitration
Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, No. 17-988 Today, the Supreme Court held by a vote of 5-4 that, under the Federal Arbitration Act, an arbitration agreement that is ambiguous as to whether it authorizes class-wide arbitration cannot provide the necessary contractual basis for concluding that the parties agreed to class arbitration. Background: The Supreme Court […]
-
Supreme Court Dismisses Securities Case Without Decision As Improvidently Granted
Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian, No. 18-459 In a one-line per curiam order issued this morning, a unanimous Supreme Court declined to resolve a dispute, argued before the Court last Monday, over whether Section 14(e) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 provides an implied private right of action based on negligent misstatements or omissions […]
