On July 28, 2017, Washington Legal Foundation published an interview in which Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law Professor Martin H. Redish answered questions on the evolution of commercial-speech protection. This “Conversations With” paper provides a fitting culmination to the series of WLF publications on commercial speech produced in the last six months.
Over the past 46 years, beginning with a 1971 law review article drafted as a Harvard Law School student, Professor Redish’s scholarship has deeply influenced the US Supreme Court’s development of the so-called commercial-speech doctrine. In the Conversations With paper, he discusses the impetus for that article, as well as the High Court’s growing respect for commercial speech.
The WLF publications were meant to provide policy makers at the state and federal levels with a basic understanding of commercial speech and the First Amendment scrutiny courts apply when reviewing restrictions on such speech. The publications, with links to each, are listed below:
- What Counts as “Commercial Speech” Today? by James M. Beck, Reed Smith LLP
- Better Think Twice before Restricting Commercial Speech, by Thomas R. Julin, Gunster Yoakley & Stuart, PA
- Precautions for Commercial-Speech Regulators, by Bert W. Rein and Megan L. Brown, Wiley Rein LLP
- First Amendment Limits Government’s Power to Compel Commercial Speech, by Jonathan F. Cohn and Paul J. Ray, Sidley Austin LLP
- Commercial-Speech Regulations Must Be No More Extensive than Necessary, by Sarah Roller and Katie Bond, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
- Conversations With … The Intellectual Godfather of Commercial Speech Protection, featuring Professor Martin H. Redish and Jay B. Stephens, Chairman of WLF’s Legal Policy Advisory Board
Whether federal district courts may certify a damages class action where no reliable, administratively feasible method exists for identifying class members is a question that has long plagued class-action defendants. The need for class ascertainability is especially dire in low-value consumer class actions in which manufacturers, distributors, and retailers are sued over “mislabeled” food, beverages, or other inexpensive consumer products. Unfortunately, the federal courts of appeals are sharply and hopelessly divided on whether Rule 23, which governs class actions in federal courts, includes an implicit ascertainability requirement. Continue reading
Featured Expert Column: Antitrust & Competition Policy — Federal Trade Commission
By M. Sean Royall, a Partner with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, with Richard H. Cunningham, Of Counsel in the firm’s Denver, CO office.*
Ed. Note: This is Mr. Royall’s debut column as the WLF Legal Pulse‘s new Antitrust & Competition Policy, FTC “Featured Expert Contributor.” WLF recognizes and appreciates former FTC Featured Expert Contributor Andrea Murino‘s four years of serving in that pro bono position.
On June 5th, 2017, the Supreme Court held in Kokesh v. SEC that disgorgement is a “penalty” subject to a five-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2462. With that ruling, the Court explicitly rejected the long-standing assertion of the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) that it possesses authority to reach back indefinitely when seeking the disgorgement of ill-gotten gains. While the Kokesh opinion explicitly limits its holding to disgorgement “as it is applied in SEC enforcement proceedings,”1 the Court’s logic extends to disgorgement actions brought by other agencies proceeding under analogous statutory authority, including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Continue reading
In a US Supreme Court term filled with cases that “only a lawyer could love,” the justices did issue at least one decision in October Term 2016—Nelson v. Colorado—that any TV crime-drama viewer can understand. The decision turned on the bedrock principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. While Justice Ginsburg’s opinion applies directly to a Colorado law, it could prove highly influential in the ongoing debate over civil-asset forfeiture, a controversial law-enforcement practice. Continue reading
Forum-shopping plaintiffs’ attorneys have long sought to file their claims against large businesses in jurisdictions with reputations for favoring plaintiffs—without regard to whether the claims actually arose in those jurisdictions. They justify their assertions of personal jurisdiction in such cases by arguing that a company that does business nationwide should be amenable to suit in any State in which it conducts substantial business. In its 2014 Daimler AG v. Bauman decision, the US Supreme Court called into serious question the validity of such venturesome assertions of jurisdiction. The Court’s decision last week in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court may have put such claims entirely to rest. Continue reading
By Doug Greene and Bret Finkelstein, a Partner and an Associate, respectively, with Lane Powell PC in the firm’s Seattle, WA office.
In a matter of first impression in the Ninth Circuit, the court applied the Supreme Court’s Omnicare standard for pleading the falsity of a statement of opinion in City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System v. Align Technology, Inc., — F.3d —, 2017 WL 1753276 (9th Cir. May 5, 2017). The Ninth Circuit decision builds on the momentum for the defense bar following the 2016 Second Circuit opinion in Tongue v. Sanofi, 816 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2016), correctly applies the rationale of Omnicare to Section 10(b) cases, and applies the Omnicare falsity analysis to an important category of statements of opinion: accounting reserves.
The Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 decision, Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund, 135 S. Ct. 1318 (2015), was originally met with mixed reviews by securities litigators of all stripes. Some commentators—including members of the defense bar—raised alarm following Omnicare, worrying that the decision was a win for plaintiffs because they felt it created a new area of potential liability for statements of opinion that were honestly held, but nonetheless misleading. Continue reading
Microsoft Corp. v. Baker is one of those cases that only a lawyer could love. At issue was whether a federal appellate court has jurisdiction to review a class-certification order if the plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed all of their claims, with prejudice.
Class-action plaintiffs have long sought the right to immediately appeal from orders denying class certification. In the 1960s and 1970s, some federal courts of appeals began allowing such an immediate right of appeal under the so-called death-knell doctrine. Under that judicially created rule, if the plaintiffs could show that the denial of class certification—if left unreviewed—would end the lawsuit for all practical purposes, the appeals court would grant review of that interlocutory order. Continue reading