In a unanimous and notable decision, the Supreme Court in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman reaffirmed the strict threshold imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), holding that a party may not evade its “extraordinary circumstances” requirement simply by seeking to amend a complaint post-judgment. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas rejected the Second Circuit’s attempt to harmonize Rule 60’s demand for finality with Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Rule 60(b)’s High Bar to Reopen Final Judgments
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Venue for Environmental Challenges
In a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held in consolidated cases Oklahoma v. EPA and PacifiCorp v. EPA that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s disapprovals of 21 individual state implementation plans (SIPs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) are “locally or regionally applicable” actions, and, as such, must be challenged in their respective regional circuit courts—even when the EPA publishes them in a single, consolidated Federal Register notice.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Venue for Environmental Challenges
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Retailers’ Right To Judicial Review Under The Tobacco Control Act
The Supreme Court held in Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. that retailers of e-cigarette products are “persons adversely affected” by an FDA denial order under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA), and therefore have standing to seek judicial review.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Retailers’ Right To Judicial Review Under The Tobacco Control Act
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Expands Scope of Wire Fraud
If you get what you paid for, can you still cry fraud? The Supreme Court answered that question in Kousisis v. United States, unanimously holding that the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, does not require a scheme to cause financial loss. Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett affirmed that intent to harm is not a necessary element of wire fraud, thereby significantly expanding the statute’s reach. Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Expands Scope of Wire Fraud
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Dismisses Labcorp v. Davis as Improvidently Granted
On June 5, 2025, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis as improvidently granted—despite having already granted certiorari and heard oral argument in the case on April 29, 2025. The Court did not explain its reasoning or disclose the vote breakdown. However, Justice Kavanaugh’s lone, solo dissent sheds light on the possible rationale behind the dismissal and defends the importance of the question presented.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Dismisses Labcorp v. Davis as Improvidently Granted
Supreme Court Weighs Certification of a Class Including Uninjured Plaintiffs
In Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (No. 24-304), the Supreme Court has the opportunity to decide whether a federal court may certify a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury. If the Court reaches the question presented, its ruling has the potential to send shockwaves through the high-stakes world of class action litigation, where defendants are often pressured to settle claims regardless of their merit when faced with potentially catastrophic damages awards. But a gleaming procedural infirmity appears likely to prevent the Court from doing so.Continue Reading Supreme Court Weighs Certification of a Class Including Uninjured Plaintiffs
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Medicare DSH Reimbursement—Key Implications for Hospitals in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy
On April 29, in a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Barrett, the Supreme Court held in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy (No. 23-715) that the “Medicare fraction” of the Medicare program includes only those patients who were eligible to receive supplementary social income (SSI) payments during the month of their hospitalization, as opposed to patients who were merely enrolled in the SSI system at the time of their hospitalization.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Medicare DSH Reimbursement—Key Implications for Hospitals in Advocate Christ Medical Center v. Kennedy
Supreme Court Considers Whether EPA’s Collective Disapprovals of State Environmental Plans Create a Nationwide Action Subject to D.C. Circuit Review
In a pair of consolidated cases—Oklahoma v. EPA and PacifiCorp v. EPA—the Supreme Court is considering the scope of the Clean Air Act’s (CAA) judicial review provision, and whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) coordinated disapproval of state implementation plans (SIPs) constitutes a “nationally applicable” action or one of “nationwide scope or effect” that must be challenged in the D.C. Circuit.Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Whether EPA’s Collective Disapprovals of State Environmental Plans Create a Nationwide Action Subject to D.C. Circuit Review
Decision Alert: Supreme Court Narrows EPA Authority Under Clean Water Act in 5-4 Decision
In the closely watched case, City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that Section 1311(b)(1)(C) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) does not authorize the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to condition compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits on the quality of the receiving waters. The ruling is expected to significantly impact wastewater treatment facilities nationwide by narrowing the scope of EPA enforcement authority.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Narrows EPA Authority Under Clean Water Act in 5-4 Decision
The Supreme Court Weighs Rule 60(B) Finality Against Rule 15(A)
Earlier this month, in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, the Supreme Court considered whether a court must balance the finality principles of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) with the liberal amendment policies of Rule 15(a) when plaintiffs seek to reopen a final judgment to file an amended complaint.Continue Reading The Supreme Court Weighs Rule 60(B) Finality Against Rule 15(A)