Appeals Court Confounds Military Justice by Importing Foreign Law into the U.S. Constitution

DC CircuitSince the war against militant Islamists began in earnest in 2001, a cornerstone of U.S. national security policy has been to employ military commissions to hear criminal charges filed against al Qaeda leaders responsible for the September 11 (and subsequent) attacks. A decision last week by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, al Bahlul v. U.S., throws that policy into disarray. It struck down a 2006 congressional statute permitting a wide variety of criminal charges to be brought before military commissions. Incredibly, the court invoked international law to do so, ruling that the U.S. Constitution only permits military commissions to consider those criminal charges that are accepted throughout the world as constituting violations of the international law of war.

It is questionable whether U.S. courts should ever look to international law for guidance when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. It is unfathomable for a court to hold (as did the D.C. Circuit) that the U.S. Constitution is controlled by international law, and to do so in a manner that significantly impedes the government’s ability to conduct trials before military commissions. The Obama Administration should ask the Supreme Court to overturn this ill-conceived decision. Continue reading

California’s New Scrutiny of Patent Litigation Settlements Will Not Stand Under Federal Law

cali sealThe California Supreme Court earlier this month issued an opinion that subjects litigants who settle their patent disputes to scrutiny under state antitrust law. The court reasoned that such settlements may create unreasonable restraints on trade. While the decision in In re Cipro Cases I & II to reinstate antitrust claims was not overly surprising—after all, the U.S. Supreme Court had previously held in FTC v. Actavis, Inc. that some patent litigation settlements might violate federal antitrust law—the breadth of the California Supreme Court’s decision could have a particularly negative impact on the free-enterprise system. Indeed, the decision suggests that parties to a patent litigation settlement will have great difficulty ever avoiding California antitrust liability if the settlement entails transferring anything of value from the patent holder to the alleged infringer. Because Cipro’s new state-law antitrust standard is so much more exacting than the standard announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in Actavis, federal antitrust law may well trump California’s standard. Indeed, were Cipro to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court likely would reverse on federal preemption grounds.

“Reverse-Payment” Patent Settlements

When parties to litigation enter into a settlement, one would normally expect that any cash payments would flow from the defendant to the plaintiff. The normal expectations have been reversed in the context of litigation involving prescription-drug patents, however, as a result of financial incentives created by the Hatch-Waxman Act, a federal statute designed to ensure that generic versions of prescription drugs enter the market more quickly. The Act includes a provision that permits generic companies, by declaring to the Food and Drug Administration a belief that the patent held by a brand-name drug company is invalid, to essentially force the patentee to immediately file a patent infringement suit. It also grants huge financial awards to generic companies that successfully challenge drug patents. Continue reading

U.S. Courts Display Commendable Restraint in Addressing Venezuela’s Property Rights Abuses

venezuelan flagThe government of Venezuela has become a notorious abuser of private property rights, seizing the property of corporations and political opponents without offering any compensation. Unable to obtain redress in Venezuelan courts, property owners with increasing frequency have turned to U.S. courts for compensation. The U.S. Court of Appelas for the Eleventh and D.C. Circuits issued nearly simultaneous decisions earlier this month in suits filed by property owners against Venezuela. While the courts reached facially inconsistent results—the Eleventh Circuit dismissed one property owner’s claim while the D.C. Circuit allowed the claims of another group of property owners to move forward—the two courts sent a similar message. Both courts made clear that while they are reluctant to inquire into the validity of a foreign sovereign’s internal conduct, such judicial restraint does not prevent courts from protecting Americans’ rights when property is taken in clear violation of international law.

Any effort to sue a foreign sovereign in a U.S. court faces a major obstacle: the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The Supreme Court has held that the FSIA is the sole basis for obtaining jurisdiction over a foreign state in our courts. The statute states explicitly that a foreign state is absolutely immune from the jurisdiction of U.S. courts unless a specific FSIA statutory exemption is applicable. The only exemption potentially available to those whose property has been confiscated is 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(3), which denies immunity in cases “in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue.” The Eleventh and D.C. Circuits agreed that the availability of the § 1605(a)(3) exemption depends to a large extent on whether the plaintiff is a citizen of the foreign state; if so, federal courts are far less willing to exercise jurisdiction. Continue reading

Supreme Court Has Opportunity to Halt Lawsuits by Uninjured Plaintiffs

supreme courtFederal courts have been inundated in recent years by suits filed by plaintiffs who have suffered no injury but who allege that a federal statute provides them with “standing” to sue for alleged violations of federal law. Such lawsuits can be extremely lucrative for the plaintiffs’ bar when the statute provides for an award of statutory damages (typically, $100 to $1,000) for each violation; by filing their suits as nationwide class actions, attorneys can often plausibly seek to recover billions of dollars. The Supreme Court may soon make it much more difficult for such suits to survive a motion to dismiss. The Court on Friday will consider whether to grant review in Spokeo v. Robins, a case that squarely addresses whether plaintiffs can assert Article III standing where their only “injury” is the affront to their sensibilities caused by the belief that someone is not complying federal law. The Court has indicated a strong interest in addressing the issue; Spokeo is an appropriate vehicle for doing so and ought to be granted.

The U.S. Solicitor General recently filed a brief recommending that the Court not hear Spokeo. That brief may, ironically, increase the likelihood that the Court will agree to hear the case, because the Solicitor General very pointedly declined to endorse the appeals court’s rationale for concluding that the plaintiff has standing.

Spokeo involves claims filed under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), one of dozens of federal statutes that offer a bounty (in the form of statutory damages) to those who demonstrate a violation of a federal statute. Spokeo, Inc. operates a “people search engine”—it aggregates publicly available information from phone books, social networks, and other sources into a database that is searchable via the Internet, and displays the results of searches in an easy-to-read format. It has always emphasized that it does not verify or evaluate any piece of data and does not guarantee the accuracy of information offered. Continue reading

The Supreme Court Should Not Abandon “Stare Decisis” in “Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises” Case Given Reliance Interest

At issue in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises

At issue in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises

The Supreme Court’s 1964 decision in Brulotte v. Thys Co. has been among the Court’s more heavily criticized patent law decisions. A number of academics and appeals court judges have complained that Brulotte, which establishes a rule governing construction of patent licensing agreements, is based on a misunderstanding of the economic considerations underlying such agreements. Perhaps in response to that criticism, the Court granted certiorari in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, Inc. to consider a single question: should it overturn the 50-year-old Brulotte rule? The Court will hear oral arguments in Kimble on March 31.

The correct answer is a resounding “no.” At oral argument, the record will show that parties negotiating patent licensing agreements have relied on Brulotte for half a century when drafting terms governing royalty payments. Overturning Brulotte would be a patent troll’s dream. It could expose licensees to unforeseen royalty demands based on long-forgotten license agreements that they reasonably assumed—in reliance on the Brulotte rule—imposed no additional payment obligations after the expiration of the licensed patent. As with patent trolls, the potential liability in some cases may be so high that in terrorem settlement is the licensee’s only reasonable choice. In other cases, the nuisance value of the claim may be smaller than the cost to litigate. Either way, a shortsighted decision in Kimble could lead to decades of costly and vexatious litigation to no one’s benefit. Continue reading

Supreme Court Observations: Interpreting “Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association”

supreme courtIn its 1997 decision, Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. Arena, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit created an important bulwark against federal administrative agency evasion of notice-and-comment rulemaking. Under the “Paralyzed Veterans” doctrine, an agency had to comply with formal (and time-consuming) administrative procedures even when it claimed to be doing nothing more than interpreting existing rules, if the agency was de facto reversing its existing regulations. The Supreme Court’s decision last week in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assoc. unanimously set aside Paralyzed Veterans. The Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not require a regulatory agency to adhere to notice-and-comment rulemaking when it issues a rule interpreting one of its formal regulations.

Largely ignoring the D.C. Circuit’s rationale, the Supreme Court said that it would presume that the 2010 rule was an “interpretive” rule because (supposedly) “the parties litigated this suit on [that] understanding.” The Court said that the text of the APA does not mandate notice-and-comment rulemaking for interpretive rules and that the D.C. Circuit thus erred in adopting an extra-statutory mandate. But by starting with the premise that the 2010 rule was an interpretive rule, the Supreme Court created a straw-man argument never espoused by the D.C. Circuit, which stated explicitly that its decision to strike down the 2010 rule was based on its reading of the text of the relevant APA provisions.

Moreover, the Respondent repeatedly argued before the Supreme Court that the 2010 rule was not an interpretive rule. The Supreme Court’s only response was to note that the Solicitor General premised his certiorari petition on a claim that the D.C. Circuit had mandated notice-and-comment rulemaking for an interpretive rule, and that the Respondent waived the point by failing to dispute the Solicitor General’s claim in its brief opposing the cert petition. But while that response might justify a ruling against the Respondent in this case, it provides no justification for condemning all non-parties subject to the DOL rule, let alone all applications of the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine, which (as the D.C. Circuit decision below made clear) does not assume that challenged rules are interpretive but rather provides a standard for differentiating between substantive and interpretive rules.

The decision nonetheless provides a glimmer of hope to those wishing to challenge rules adopted without adherence to notice-and-comment procedures. The Court’s ruling assumed (incorrectly, it turns out) that the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine was based on the premise that the challenged re-interpretation of existing regulation qualified as an “interpretive rule” under the APA. Thus, Perez arguably imposes no impediment on a litigant who asserts that the challenged rule is “substantive” in nature, not “interpretive.”

Substantive Rules v. Interpretive Rules. The APA requires federal agencies, before they adopt “substantive” rules (a/k/a “legislative” rules), to provide notice of the proposed rule and a meaningful opportunity for members of the public to comment on the proposal. Exempted from the APA’s notice-and-comment requirement are mere “interpretive” rules. Agencies seek to avoid notice-and-comment requirements by deeming as many rule changes as possible interpretive changes; the requirements are burdensome and can delay agency action for months or even years. Yet, despite nearly 70 years of APA litigation, the scope of exempt “interpretive” rules has never been fully pinned down.

The Paralyzed Veterans doctrine was the D.C. Circuit’s principal contribution to that debate. The appeals court held that when an agency issues a definitive interpretation of one of its formal regulations and later seeks to issue a new interpretation that squarely conflicts with the prior interpretation, the new interpretation is a “substantive” rule and thus may not be adopted unless the agency first goes through notice-and-comment rulemaking. The court sensibly reasoned that when an agency seeks to repudiate its initial interpretation, it has in effect amended its formal regulation, and that an agency should not be permitted to “reinterpret” a regulation as a means of evading the formal rulemaking requirements that (everyone agrees) apply whenever an agency amends its regulations. Continue reading

By Treating Recusal Motions as a Game, Lawyers are Eroding Public Confidence in our Courts

Ill. S CtThe meaning of “chutzpah” is often illustrated by pointing to the man who kills his parents and then throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan. The recent actions of a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers involved in a multi-billion dollar case before the Illinois Supreme Court exhibit a similar kind of chutzpah. They have labored for more than a decade to have Justice Lloyd Karmeier removed from the case, most recently by bankrolling (to the tune of more than $2 million) a “no” campaign for Karmeier’s November 2014 retention election. That effort narrowly failed: 61% of the south Illinois electorate voted to retain Karmeier for another 10-year term.

So last month the attorneys filed a motion to have Karmeier removed from the case. Their reason? Karmeier is likely biased against them because of their persistent efforts to get rid of him, and the integrity of the courts requires the removal of judges whose impartiality might reasonably be questioned. The motion lacks merit and should be denied. Motions of this sort are doing far more to undermine public confidence in the integrity of the judicial system than could a judge’s decision to hear a case despite self-interested allegations of partiality. As Justice Antonin Scalia has explained, such motions feed the perception that litigation is just a game, that the party with the most resourceful lawyer can play it to win, and that our seemingly interminable legal proceedings are wonderfully self-perpetuating but incapable of delivering real-world justice. Continue reading