In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s Universal Service Program (USP) does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion in FCC v. Consumers’ Research and Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition v. Consumers’ Research, with Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson filing separate concurrences. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Nondelegation Challenge to FCC’s Universal Service Program
Decision Alert: The Supreme Court Holds That Fuel Producers Have Standing to Sue EPA
The Supreme Court held 7-2 in Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency that fuel producers have standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s approval of California’s vehicle emission regulations. Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson filed separate dissents.Continue Reading Decision Alert: The Supreme Court Holds That Fuel Producers Have Standing to Sue EPA
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules Texas Lacks Standing to Challenge Nuclear Regulatory Commission Licensing Decision
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 Considers Standing to Challenge Clean Air Act Waiver Based on Market Impact
The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency (No. 24-7), a case examining whether economic harm stemming from market forces influenced by environmental regulation can support Article III standing. At issue is California’s authority to enforce its own emission standards, through a waiver granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Standing to Challenge Clean Air Act Waiver Based on Market Impact
Supreme Court Considers Nondelegation Challenge to FCC’s Universal Service Program
In a case with potentially sweeping implications for administrative and constitutional law, the Supreme Court is weighing whether the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) administration of universal telecommunications services violates the nondelegation doctrine—a principle that limits Congress’s ability to transfer legislative authority to agencies or private entities.Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Nondelegation Challenge to FCC’s Universal Service Program
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 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 Cases
Decision 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 Exemptions