U.S. Supreme Court

Subscribe to U.S. Supreme Court via RSS

After the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the plaintiffs’ bar has found a new hook for challenges affecting retailers. The litigation risk is landing not just on importers seeking refunds from the government, but on retailers, marketplaces, and service providers that passed tariff costs through to consumers. Unfortunately, this means that many companies affected by the tariffs in the first instance will now be hit by another target.

On February 20, the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs, invalidating a broad swath of tariffs imposed in 2025. (Watch a recording of this webinar to learn more.) IEEPA-based tariffs were terminated shortly after the decision, and the ruling created significant refund exposure. Critically, the Court did not address how refunds should be handled. That last point is the opening plaintiffs’ lawyers are using.

Continue Reading IEEPA Tariffs Invalidated: Rising Class Action Risk for Consumer Pricing

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that President Donald Trump may remove Democratic Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Rebecca Slaughter without cause while her legal challenge to the termination proceeds.

Supreme Court Stay on FTC Commissioner’s Removal

In a 6–3 decision, the Court granted the Trump administration’s request for a stay, temporarily blocking rulings from the district court and the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit that had ordered her reinstatement. As we previously discussed, both courts had ruled that Slaughter’s removal was unlawful under Humphrey’s Executor, which held that Congress could limit the president’s removal power by providing for-cause protections for commissioners at independent agencies such as the FTC.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Stay Sets Stage for Reconsidering Humphrey’s Executor

Earlier this month, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled President Trump’s removal of Democrat commissioners from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was unlawful. In a 2-1 decision, the panel held that the case was squarely controlled by Supreme Court precedent in Humphrey’s Executor. The D.C. Circuit decision upheld the district court’s ruling in July and sets the stage for the Supreme Court to determine whether to uphold or overrule long-standing precedent regarding removal protections for “independent” executive agencies.

On Monday, Chief Justice John Roberts granted the Trump administration’s request  and stayed the D.C. Circuit’s decision pending further orders from Roberts or the Supreme Court, which effectively removes Rebecca Slaughter (again) from her role as an FTC commissioner. The stay order directs Slaughter to respond to the administration’s appeal by September 15. During her brief reinstatement, Slaughter dissented from several FTC actions.

Continue Reading Legal Ping-Pong: D.C. Circuit Restores, Then Supreme Court Removes, Rebecca Slaughter as FTC Commissioner

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) continues to be hotly litigated by class action plaintiffs’ attorneys, with filed cases increasing significantly over the last year. Last month, the Supreme Court ruled in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corp. that federal district courts have the power to ignore the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) interpretations of the TCPA and to independently decide what the TCPA requires. The decision (which should not come as much of a surprise after the Loper Bright holding) concluded that the federal Hobbs Act does not demand that district courts absolutely defer to the FCC’s interpretations of the TCPA in enforcement proceedings, stating:

In an enforcement proceeding, a district court must independently determine for itself whether the agency’s interpretation of a statute is correct. District courts are not bound by the agency’s interpretation, but instead must determine the meaning of the law under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation, affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation. 

Continue Reading The Future of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in the Wake of Supreme Court’s Decision in McLaughin Chiropractic v. McKesson

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