New “WLF Month in Review” Chronicles Our Litigation and Regulatory Filings and Results

WLF Month in ReviewWashington Legal Foundation has released the inaugural edition of a newsletter, “WLF Month in Review,” that will keep our supporters, friends, and other interested parties informed about the litigation briefs we have filed and the regulatory proceedings in which we are participating.

The August 2018 edition includes developments from June and July, and can be viewed here. If there is a particular item you are interested in, clicking on that item on the first page will take you to a full description.

Three Antitrust Developments to Watch in Wake of High Court’s “Ohio v. American Express” Ruling

swisherFeatured Expert Column: Antitrust & Competition Policy — U.S. Department of Justice

By Anthony W. Swisher, a Partner in the Washington, DC office of Baker Botts LLP

As vertical issues continue to attract attention in the world of antitrust, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. American Express was a long-awaited milestone.  The outcome of the decision was not surprising—many commenters had predicted that a Court that has generally been skeptical of antitrust plaintiffs would uphold the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s decision in favor of American Express—but a few features of the decision were noteworthy.

Recall that the case involved Amex’s use of non-discriminatory provisions, or “NDPs,” that prevent a merchant that accepts Amex cards from engaging in strategic behavior to steer customers toward use of a different payment card that might carry a lower transaction fee for the merchant. At issue was whether the NDPs constituted unreasonable restraints that suppressed interbrand competition by preventing merchants from favoring lower-cost payment methods by customers. Continue reading “Three Antitrust Developments to Watch in Wake of High Court’s “Ohio v. American Express” Ruling”

The Dog That Didn’t Bark in the Night: SCOTUS’s “NIFLA v. Becerra” and the Future of Commercial Speech

supreme court

The U.S. Supreme Court last week issued its long-awaited opinion in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra. In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Court held that a California law requiring licensed pro-life counselling clinics to direct their clients to abortion providers  likely violated the clinics’ free speech rights under the First Amendment. Like the famous dog that didn’t bark in the night,[*] however, Justice Thomas’s majority opinion in NIFLA is far more revealing for what it doesn’t say than for what it does say. Continue reading “The Dog That Didn’t Bark in the Night: SCOTUS’s “NIFLA v. Becerra” and the Future of Commercial Speech”

Supreme Court Justices Signal Interest in Reconsidering Agency Deference in October Term 2018

SapperGuest Commentary

By Arthur G. Sapper, Senior Counsel with Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C. in its Washington, DC office, where he practices both appellate litigation and administrative law, with an emphasis on OSHA matters.**

Chevron deference is increasingly coming under fire from the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court. That came through loud and clear in Pereira v. Sessions, issued on June 21, 2018. Not only did the approach of the majority opinion appear to be at odds with the Court’s past approach to Chevron deference, but Justice Kennedy stated in a concurring opinion that “it seems necessary and appropriate to reconsider . . . the premises that underlie Chevron and how courts have implemented that decision.” Justice Alito asserted in dissent that “the Court, for whatever reason, is simply ignoring Chevron.” Continue reading “Supreme Court Justices Signal Interest in Reconsidering Agency Deference in October Term 2018”

A Haphazard Holding: Montana Supreme Court’s Ruling in Superfund Case Harms Commerce and the Environment

montana s ctBy Amanda Voeller, a 2018 Judge K.K. Legett Fellow at Washington Legal Foundation who will be entering her third year at Texas Tech University School of Law in the fall.

Tension between uniform federal regulation and state-level action has become more prevalent recently, and a pending certiorari petition in the U.S. Supreme Court in Christian v. Atlantic Richfield Co., illustrates well this conflict.  In Atlantic Richfield, the Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO) has asked the U.S. Supreme Court (with the support of a WLF amicus brief) to review and overturn a Montana Supreme Court ruling that creates extreme uncertainty for businesses by allowing state courts to supersede federal environmental regulations. Continue reading “A Haphazard Holding: Montana Supreme Court’s Ruling in Superfund Case Harms Commerce and the Environment”

Supreme Court Continues to Nibble Away at Alien Tort Statute’s Sweep

supreme courtYesterday’s decision in Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, the U.S. Supreme Court’s third major decision involving the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), continues a trend of reining in human rights activists’ efforts to police private businesses’ overseas conduct through ATS litigation.  The Court held that foreign corporations may not be sued under the ATS for their overseas conduct.  But as with past Supreme Court ATS decisions, the justices once again failed to shut the door entirely on human rights activists: the ruling said nothing about the many ATS claims pending against American corporations.  It thereby ensured that U.S. companies will continue to face such claims for the foreseeable future.

While Jesner suggests that five justices likely would rule that the federal courts should not recognize an ATS cause of action against American corporations for their overseas activities, several federal appeals courts have exhibited little willingness to limit the scope of ATS liability unless directly ordered to do so by the Supreme Court. Continue reading “Supreme Court Continues to Nibble Away at Alien Tort Statute’s Sweep”

Supreme Court Has Second Chance to Resolve Circuit Split on Two Criminal Securities Fraud Issues

SchaerrGuest Commentary

By Gene C. Schaerr, a Partner with Schaerr Duncan LLP in Washington, DC. Mr. Schaerr is Counsel of Record for the petitioners on the certiorari petition discussed here.

The U.S. Supreme Court may be about to resolve two issues of enormous importance to anyone involved, directly or indirectly, in the sale of securities.  The case that may provide the vehicle for such a ruling, Ellison v. United States, was recently the subject of an order directing the U.S. Solicitor General to file a response to the defendants’ petition for certiorari by May 21.  That petition challenges a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decision that, as the Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, and a group of law professors explained in a supporting amicus brief, exacerbates a “system” already “stacked in favor of the government.” Continue reading “Supreme Court Has Second Chance to Resolve Circuit Split on Two Criminal Securities Fraud Issues”