In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the State of Texas and Fasken Land and Minerals Ltd., a private Texas-based company involved in oil and gas extraction and production, lack standing to challenge the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) decision to license a private nuclear waste storage facility in West Texas. Writing for the majority in Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, Justice Kavanaugh concluded that neither Texas nor Fasken qualified as “aggrieved parties” under the Hobbs Act. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Alito and Thomas.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules Texas Lacks Standing to Challenge Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Decision
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Calls for Judicial Deference to Agencies’ Factual Findings and Interpretation of Procedural Requirements
In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the Supreme Court unanimously determined 8-0 that the D.C. Circuit failed to afford the Surface Transportation Board (STB) the substantial judicial deference required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The D.C. Circuit had interpreted NEPA as requiring the STB to consider environmental effects beyond its regulatory purview—specifically, the potential impacts of upstream oil extraction and downstream refining—before approving the construction of a railway.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Calls for Judicial Deference to Agencies’ Factual Findings and Interpretation of Procedural Requirements
Supreme Court Weighs Procedure for Reopened Federal Appeals
The Supreme Court is currently considering a procedural question that could significantly affect how appeals are handled when litigants miss filing deadlines due to delayed notice of judgment. In Parrish v. United States (No. 24-275), the Justices will decide whether a litigant who timely files a notice of appeal after the ordinary deadline—but before a district court formally reopens the appeal period—must later file a second, duplicative notice once the period is officially reopened.Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Procedure for Reopened Federal Appeals
Supreme Court Considers Venue and Nationwide Applicability of EPA Actions in Renewable Fuel Case
In Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, the Supreme Court is weighing whether legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) denial of Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) exemptions for small oil refineries must be filed exclusively in the D.C. Circuit under the Clean Air Act (CAA).Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Venue and Nationwide Applicability of EPA Actions in Renewable Fuel Case
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Broadens False Claims Act Reach To E-Rate Reimbursement Requests
In a significant and unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court held that reimbursement requests submitted to the E-Rate program qualify as “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA) if any portion of the funds involved originates from the U.S. Treasury. The decision in Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Heath is poised to have far-reaching implications for entities that receive federal funds through intermediaries, heightening litigation and raising the stakes for FCA compliance.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Broadens False Claims Act Reach To E-Rate Reimbursement Requests
Supreme Court Tackles Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Powers and Nonparty Challenges to Final Orders
Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas raises significant questions about the scope of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision-making and who can contest those decisions. The issues before the Court are whether the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) may license private companies to store depleted nuclear fuel and whether a nonparty can challenge the agency’s final orders.Continue Reading Supreme Court Tackles Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Powers and Nonparty Challenges to Final Orders
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That Federal Courts Lose Jurisdiction Over State Law Claims After Plaintiff Purges Federal Law Claims
On January 15, 2025, in Royal Canin v. Wullschleger, the Supreme Court held that when a plaintiff amends a complaint to eliminate federal law claims—leaving only state law claims—federal courts lose jurisdiction over the remaining claims and must remand the case to state court (if the case was removed) or dismiss the case (if originally filed in federal court). Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Holds That Federal Courts Lose Jurisdiction Over State Law Claims After Plaintiff Purges Federal Law Claims
Supreme Court Tackles Post-Employment Disability Discrimination
Stanley v. City of Sanford raises significant questions about the scope of protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for individuals after employment.Continue Reading Supreme Court Tackles Post-Employment Disability Discrimination
Supreme Court To Clarify Finality of Federal Agency Orders
In McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates v. McKesson Corporation, the Supreme Court is set to determine whether the Hobbs Act requires district courts to follow the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)—specifically, the FCC’s understanding that the TCPA does not prohibit electronically received faxes, a mundane issue that involves seemingly extinct technology (fax machines), but arising in a case that holds potentially significant constitutional consequences.Continue Reading Supreme Court To Clarify Finality of Federal Agency Orders
Supreme Court To Resolve NEPA Dispute Over Environmental Review Boundaries
In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, the challenge before the Court is whether the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) mandates a federal agency to study environmental impacts beyond those within its regulatory authority.Continue Reading Supreme Court To Resolve NEPA Dispute Over Environmental Review Boundaries