Photo of Monika Harris

Monika Harris is an associate at Dykema’s Chicago office who specializes in business litigation matters. Monika provides valuable advice primarily to clients in the manufacturing and insurance industries. In her practice, she advises clients on litigation strategies for a variety of matters including breach of warranty, premises liability, consumer financial services, breach of contract, deceptive business practices, and tortious interference with business expectancy. Monika represents business clients in federal and state courts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congress authorized the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to establish and implement universal service subsidy programs to promote affordable and reliable nationwide communications services funded by mandatory contributions from telecommunications carriers. 47 U.S.C. § 254. As part of the regulatory scheme to implement its programs, the FCC appointed the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), a private company, to administer the programs. Among its tasks, the USAC calculates projections used in computing universal service contribution rates (a tax determined by a private entity according to the Fifth Circuit), which the FCC may adopt.Continue Reading Grant Alert: The Court Continues To Scrutinize the Administrative State but Questions the Claimed Procedural Laxity of Challenges to Agency Action

In Wisconsin Bell, Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Todd Heath, another case testing the limits of the False Claims Act (FCA), the question presented is whether requests for money from the FCC’s E-rate program are “claims” under the False Claims Act (FCA).Continue Reading Supreme Court Scrutinizes Definitions To Determine Scope of False Claims Act

In Royal Canin v. Wullschleger, the Supreme Court will determine whether a plaintiff, whose state court action has been removed by the defendant to federal court, may seek to have the case remanded to state court by amending the complaint to remove all references to federal law.Continue Reading Supreme Court Grapples With Footnotes and Forum-Shopping