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
Supreme Court Scrutinizes Definitions To Determine Scope of False Claims Act
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 ActSupreme Court Grapples With Footnotes and Forum-Shopping
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-ShoppingLast 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.
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds in Speech Cases That First Amendment Facial Challenges Require Thorough Analysis of Law’s Application To Show It’s Largely Unconstitutional
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court held in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton that courts cannot rule on facial First Amendment challenges to laws without conducting a proper and thorough analysis of the law’s application. While the Court’s judgment was unanimous, three justices did not join Justice Kagan’s majority opinion in full. Justices Jackson, Thomas, and Alito each filed an opinion concurring with the judgment, with Justices Gorsuch and Thomas joining the Alito opinion. Justice Barrett also filed a concurring opinion.
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Does Not Resolve Whether Federal Law Preempts Certain State Abortion Restrictions, Remands for Further Consideration
The Supreme Court dismissed the consolidated cases Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States without reaching the merits of whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) preempts an Idaho law criminalizing most abortions. As a result, a lower court order enjoining the Idaho law goes back into effect.
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds That Statute of Limitations Begins To Accrue When Injury Occurs
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court held in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of The Federal Rsrv. Sys. that under the federal Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the statute of limitations for a claim challenging an agency rule begins to accrue when a party suffers injury, not when the agency rule was finalized. Justice Barrett authored the opinion. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Jackson dissented, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Kagan.
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Holds That Former President Donald Trump Is Absolutely Immune From Criminal Prosecution for His Official Acts but Remands Case To Lower Courts To Determine Whether He Is Immune for Other Conduct While in Office
On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a historic decision in Trump v. United States, holding that a former president is entitled to immunity from criminal prosecution for official acts undertaken while in office. Chief Justice Roberts authored the opinion, joined by Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Barrett filed an opinion concurring in part. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Justice Jackson also authored a dissent.
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Stays Federal Plan That Would Impose Emissions Standards on States
On June 27, 2024, in four consolidated cases (lead case: Ohio v. EPA), the Supreme Court held that states and other groups challenging a federal plan imposing emissions standards are likely to succeed in showing that the EPA failed to reasonably explain the rule. Justice Gorsuch authored the opinion for the Court. Justice Barrett wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.