U.S. Supreme Court

Subscribe to U.S. Supreme Court via RSS

The Fifth Circuit on April 17 vacated a $57 million FCC forfeiture against AT&T, ruling the agency violated the company’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial under the Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. This decision reinforces that federal agencies imposing fines, forfeitures, and other monetary penalties must afford targets access to an Article III decision maker and a jury trial in order to perfect the penalty.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Decision Vacating FCC Fine Against AT&T Makes It More Difficult for Federal Agencies to Impose Monetary Penalties for Violations of Agency Rules

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Federal Communications Commission v. Consumers’ Research (consolidated with SHLB Coalition v. Consumers’ Research), a case about the role of executive administrative agencies and congressional delegations of power to those agencies that could revitalize the long-dormant nondelegation doctrine.

This case has broad implications for administrative law generally, but for agencies that are empowered to assess fees or that delegate to private entities in particular. Notably, similar arguments about the doctrine were used to challenge some of the FTC’s more aggressive efforts under Lina Khan, former chair of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) . An affirmance would invite more aggressive challenges to all sorts of agency actions where arguably Congress’s delegation is unclear or goes too far.Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Nondelegation Case Implicating the Powers of Administrative Agencies

It’s October and, in addition to playoff baseball, that means the Supreme Court is back in session. The Court has chosen to hear arguments in two cases with significant ramifications for advertising law. Both cases will impact the risks and liabilities faced by companies accused of false or misleading advertising practices nationwide.

In Medical Marijuana, Inc. et al. v. Horn, the Court will decide whether plaintiffs may bring suit under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to recover economic damages resulting from personal injuries. In Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers, Inc., the Court will determine whether the Lanham Act permits district courts to penalize corporate subsidiaries for trademark infringement.Continue Reading Medical Marijuana and Dewberry: The Supreme Court Tackles RICO and Lanham Act Claims

These days, it seems like there are three guarantees in life—death, taxes, and monumental Supreme Court administrative law opinions in the summer. As you’ve probably heard by now, the trend continues this year, including perhaps the largest fireworks display possible (in the administrative law context, that is). If for some reason you’ve been ignoring the news, just recently in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron decision and held that courts need not defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute; rather, courts must exercise independent judgment when determining whether an agency acted within its statutory authority.

There’s a lot to unpack in the 109 pages of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions. So, we’ll just focus on what this could mean for the recent uptick in agency action coming out of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).Continue Reading The Loper Bright Impact: Agency Action Likely to Face More Scrutiny in Light of the Supreme Court’s Disposal of Chevron Deference

On October 3, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America, Limited, where the Court is reviewing the Fifth Circuit’s opinion that struck down the Payday Lending Rule because the Fifth Circuit found that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (the “Bureau”) funding structure is unconstitutional. While the Fifth Circuit decision was limited to the Payday Lending Rule, a ruling upholding the Fifth Circuit’s decision would have severe ramifications for the Bureau and could potentially lead to the demise of the agency without congressional action.

As a refresher, the Fifth Circuit held that the Bureau’s “unique” funding structure violates Article I of the Constitution—vesting Congress with appropriation power—because the agency is not funded through congressional appropriations. Rather, the Bureau receives its funding from the Federal Reserve, which is funded through bank assessments. In short, the Fifth Circuit found that Congress had abdicated its “power of the purse” and had run afoul of the nondelegation doctrine where it has no involvement in the CFPB’s ongoing funding.Continue Reading C[FPB] You Later? Agency’s Future Hangs in the Balance After Oral Argument

The Supreme Court’s opinion last week in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross raises more questions than it answers regarding what state laws might violate the dormant Commerce Clause. California prohibits the in-state sale of pork that comes from pigs raised in “cruel” conditions—even though nearly all the pork sold in California is raised in other states. The Court upheld that law in the face of a dormant Commerce Clause challenge. But the Court’s fractured reasoning makes it hard to predict how other laws might fare.

As a refresher, the Dormant Commerce Clause stems from Congress’s Article 1, Section 8 authority to regulate commerce “among the several States.” In contrast to preemption, which limits states’ authority in an area where Congress has acted, the Dormant Commerce Clause limits states’ ability to regulate even when there is no relevant congressional action. Continue Reading Could Texas Ban the Sale of Union-Made Goods? After National Pork Producers, We Still Don’t Know