The Supreme Court is set to resolve a critical issue in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services—whether majority-group plaintiffs must meet a higher evidentiary burden to prove reverse discrimination under Title VII. The case challenges the long-standing requirement that plaintiffs from majority groups must establish “background circumstances” suggesting discrimination, a standard not applied to minority-group plaintiffs.
Continue Reading Supreme Court To Rule on Additional Burden for Reverse Discrimination Claims
Supreme Court Examines Scope of Rule 60(b) Ability To Reopen Cases
In Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., the Supreme Court will determine whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a district court to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding,” can be invoked when a party voluntarily dismisses its case.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Examines Scope of Rule 60(b) Ability To Reopen CasesDecision Alert: Supreme Court Confirms Standard of Proof for FLSA Exemptions
On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of civil litigation: the preponderance of the evidence standard remains the default unless explicitly altered by statute or constitutional mandate. In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the Court clarified this standard for exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), resolving a dispute over the appropriate burden of proof for employers claiming such exemptions.
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Confirms Standard of Proof for FLSA ExemptionsDecision Alert: Supreme Court Upholds Conditional TikTok Ban, But TikTok Persists
On January 17, 2025, in the coordinated cases of TikTok v. Garland (No. 24-656) and Firebaugh v. Garland (No. 24-657), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. This bipartisan law bans TikTok in the United States if TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, does not sell the popular web-based video-sharing platform to a non-Chinese owner. In an unsigned opinion, the Court rejected TikTok’s First Amendment challenge to the new divest-or-be-banned law and ruled that it was justified by the threat of China’s collecting sensitive data from TikTok’s U.S. users to influence U.S. public opinion by manipulating their personalized video feeds. Concurring only in the outcome reached by the Court, Justice Gorsuch wrote separately to observe that the cases had moved through the Supreme Court very quickly and that he did not have “the kind of certainty I would like to have about the arguments and record before us. All I can say is that, at this time and under these constraints, the problem appears real and the response to it not unconstitutional.”
Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Upholds Conditional TikTok Ban, But TikTok PersistsSupreme Court To Determine Limits of Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action
In FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC,the Supreme Court is set to decide whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) denial of authorization for new e-cigarette products was arbitrary and capricious.
Continue Reading Supreme Court To Determine Limits of Arbitrary and Capricious Agency ActionChief Justice’s Year-End Report
On December 31, 2024, Chief Justice Roberts issued his annual year-end written report. The New Year’s Eve report is an annual tradition, beginning with Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1970, giving the chief justice an opportunity to discuss a topic of his choosing.
Continue Reading Chief Justice’s Year-End ReportSupreme Court Examines Standard of Proof for FLSA Exemptions
In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the Supreme Court will grapple with the question of whether the standard of proof for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) exemptions is a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence. Under the FLSA, employers must pay employees time-and-a-half for work exceeding 40 hours a week unless an exemption applies.
Continue Reading Supreme Court Examines Standard of Proof for FLSA ExemptionsFederal Court Tees Up False Claims Act Constitutionality Dispute
The Supreme Court recently decided U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In dissent, Justice Thomas questioned the constitutionality of the qui tam regime under the False Claims Act (FCA), by which a private “relator” represents the interests of the United States in litigation. Concurring with the majority, Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett nevertheless agreed with Justice Thomas that the constitutional issue he raised should be considered in “an appropriate case.” Dykema covered the decision, including the dissent, in a previous article.
Continue Reading Federal Court Tees Up False Claims Act Constitutionality DisputeLast Month at the Supreme Court | 2023 Term Conclusion
Our final edition of Last Month at the Supreme Court for the 2023 Term captures the outcomes of several critical cases in which the Justices tackle modern issues like the constitutionality of social media speech restrictions, standing to sue officials allegedly pressuring social media companies, and challenges to a federal plan imposing emissions standards.
Continue Reading Last Month at the Supreme Court | 2023 Term Conclusion
Decision Alert: In Social Media “Jawboning” Case, Supreme Court Holds Individuals and States Lack Standing to Sue Federal Officials for Social Media Platforms’ Content Moderation
In Murthy v. United States, the Supreme Court held that private and state plaintiffs did not have Article III standing to sue federal officials who plaintiffs claimed violated their First Amendment rights by allegedly pressuring social media companies to restrict or remove content.