image description

Archives

  • False Claims Act—Seal Requirement

    State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. United States ex rel. Rigsby, No. 15-513 The False Claims Act requires a qui tam relator—a private party authorized to seek recovery from those who make false claims on the federal government—to file his or her complaint under seal. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide what the […]

  • Securities Law—Insider Trading

    Salman v. United States, No. 15-628 The Court clarified an important issue of securities law, concluding unanimously today in an opinion by Justice Alito that a tippee who trades on inside information provided by another person cannot escape liability merely because the tipper expected and received nothing of tangible value in exchange for the information. […]

  • Patent Act—Inter Partes Review

    Cuozzo Speed Techs, LLC v. Lee, No. 15-446 When a third party wishes to challenge a patent as obvious or lacking novelty, the third party may invoke an administrative procedure known as inter partes review. That procedure was created by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2012, and, today, the Supreme Court resolved two significant […]

  • Administrative Law—Chevron Deference

    Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, No. 15-415 Under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. NRDC, an agency is ordinarily entitled to deference when it interprets a statute through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Today, however, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous reminder that Chevron is not absolute, refusing to accord deference to a Department of Labor regulation interpreting a narrow […]

  • False Claims Act—Implied Certification

    Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, No. 15-7 Yesterday, in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, the Supreme Court held that a claim presented to the United States for payment can be false or fraudulent for purposes of the False Claims Act under an “implied certification” theory. The Court […]

  • Patent Act—Standard for Enhanced (Willfulness) Damages

    Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., No. 14-1513 A patent infringer is liable for enhanced damages when his infringement is willful. 35 U.S.C. § 284. In In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (en banc), the Federal Circuit adopted a two-part test for determining when additional damages would be assessed: the […]

  • Clean Water Act—Reviewability of Army Corps of Engineers’ “Jurisdictional Determinations”

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., No. 15-290 The Clean Water Act prohibits private parties from discharging dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States” without first obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Because this permitting process is expensive and time-consuming, the Corps created a procedure for […]

  • Title VII—Limitations Period for Constructive Discharge Claims

    Green v. Brennan, No. 14-613 A federal civil servant claiming a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 must “initiate contact” with the EEOC “within 45 days of the date of the matter alleged to be discriminatory.” Today, in an opinion for a six-Justice majority authored by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme […]

  • Title VII—Attorneys’ Fees for Prevailing Defendants

    CRST Van Expedited, Inc. v. EEOC, No. 14-1375 A defendant defeating a Title VII action is entitled to attorneys’ fees when the plaintiff’s claim was “frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless,” or if “the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.” Christiansburg Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412, 422 (1978). Today, in CRST Van […]

  • Securities Exchange Act—Scope of Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction

    Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, No. 14-1132 The Supreme Court today rejected an effort to bring state-law suits that reference federal securities laws into federal court. The Court ruled that the provision of the Securities Exchange Act that grants federal courts “exclusive jurisdiction” over all suits “brought to enforce any liability […]

  • Bankruptcy Code—Fraudulent Conveyances Qualify As “Actual Fraud”

    Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, No. 15-145 Debtors seek the protections of the Bankruptcy Code to have their debts discharged, but there are exceptions. A creditor can prohibit discharge of a debt “obtained by … actual fraud.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). Today, in a 7-1 decision written by Justice Sotomayor, the Supreme Court ruled […]

  • Article III Standing—Pleading Injury-in-Fact

    Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1339 The Supreme Court today issued its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, a closely-watched case presenting the question whether Article III’s “injury-in-fact” requirement for standing to sue in federal court may be satisfied by alleging a statutory violation without any accompanying real-world injury. The Court held that a plaintiff […]

  • First Amendment and Collective Bargaining—Validity of Agency-Shop Arrangements

    Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, No. 14-915 Leaving a hotly contested issue for another day, the Supreme Court announced today that the Justices had divided evenly as to whether the First Amendment permits the mandatory assessment of “agency shop” fees on public-sector employees, to support collective bargaining.  In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 […]

  • Class and Collective Actions—Standard for Certification

     Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), a court may certify a suit for damages as a class action when “there are questions of law or fact common to the class” that “predominate over any questions affecting only individual members.” Similar certification standards apply when a plaintiff seeks […]

  • Federal Diversity Jurisdiction—Citizenship of Unincorporated Entities

    Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 14-1382 Today, the Supreme Court held that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, an unincorporated legal entity has the citizenship of its members (including its shareholders)—even if the entity is labeled a “trust.” Federal courts have jurisdiction over controversies between “citizens” of different States. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). For […]

  • ERISA—Preemption of State Health-Care Reporting Requirements

    Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 14‑181 Today, the Supreme Court held in Gobeille v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., No. 14‑181, that ERISA preempts Vermont’s health-care database law when applied to ERISA-governed plans. ERISA establishes uniform national standards and obligations for the fiduciaries of employee benefit plans. With certain exceptions, it preempts “any and […]

  • Federal Power Act—Federal Regulation of Demand Response in the Wholesale Energy Market

    FERC v. Electric Power Supply Association, No. 14-840; EnerNOC, Inc. v. Electric Power Supply Association, No. 14-841 The Federal Power Act (FPA) grants the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission exclusive jurisdiction over “the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce.” 16 U.S.C. § 824(b)(1). FERC may regulate any “rule, regulation, practice, or contract affecting [a […]

  • Employee Retirement Income Security Act—Stock-Drop Actions

    Amgen Inc. v. Harris, No. 15-278 In a per curiam summary reversal, the Supreme Court today clarified that the standard plaintiffs must satisfy in ERISA stock-drop actions is a high one. In a stock-drop action, participants in an employer’s 401(k) plan sue fiduciaries to the plan on the theory that the fiduciaries should have removed […]

  • Statutes of Limitations—Equitable Tolling

    Menominee Tribe of Wisconsin v. United States, No. 14-510 A statute of limitations is subject to equitable tolling if a litigant demonstrates that, despite pursuing his rights diligently, some extraordinary obstacle prevented timely filing of a complaint. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court today clarified how courts are to determine […]

  • Employee Retirement Income Security Act—Enforcement of Plan Subrogation Clauses

    Montanile v. Board of Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Health Benefit Plan, No. 14-723 Many employee benefit plans governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) require employers to pay covered medical expenses when a plan participant is injured by a third party. These plans usually contain subrogation clauses requiring the […]