Before committing to a franchise business, consider...
Amgen recently filed its Reply brief to the Supreme Court in Amgen v. Sanofi. While a conventional proportion of Amgen's Reply is directed to arguments Respondent Sanofi made in its brief, at trial, and before the Federal...more
Alfred Siegel v. John Fitzgerald, III, No. 21-441: This case, involving the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 (“BJA”) applicable to Chapter 11 bankruptcies, presents the following question: Whether the BJA violates the...more
Today, the Supreme Court of the United States issued the following three opinions: Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP, No. 18-916: Patent challengers are able to ask the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”)...more
On Friday afternoon, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in the following cases: Trump v. Vance, No. 19-635: Whether as part of a district attorney’s criminal investigation targeting the President of...more
At the end of the Supreme Court’s most recent term, the Court released its long-awaited ruling in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., 139 S. Ct. 2051 (June 20, 2019)—a case that could have carried...more
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits unsolicited calls, text messages and faxes; it’s a federal statute that provides for statutory damages between $500-$1,500 per violation. With the speed and ease (and...more
Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in 1992 to regulate how people communicate by phone and fax. The TCPA gave the Federal Communications Commission regulatory authority to issue rules expanding on the...more
In its long-awaited ruling addressing whether the Administrative Orders Review Act (Hobbs Act) requires district courts to accept the FCC's legal interpretations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the TCPA), the...more
TCPA litigators have been closely monitoring the U.S. Supreme Court's docket waiting for a ruling in the PDR Network case. At stake is what kind of judicial deference should be given to the FCC's interpretation of the...more
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded for consideration to the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit two preliminary questions antecedent to the main issue of whether federal district courts must defer to the Federal...more
In November 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court had granted certiorari in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., to decide whether the Hobbs Act required the district court to accept the Federal Communications...more
Are district courts prohibited in every instance from considering challenges to the Federal Communication Commission (“FCC”)’s interpretation of certain provisions in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act – or can district...more
In a recent decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal district court was not necessarily bound by the Federal Communications Commission’s prior interpretation of a federal statute over which the agency has...more
Dodging the question of whether the Hobbs Act requires a federal court to accept the 2006 Federal Communication Commission (FCC) Order that provides the legal interpretation for the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA),...more
On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in PDR v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic. The Court was expected to provide greater clarity about the extent to which litigants can challenge the Federal...more
On June 20, 2019, the United States Supreme Court decided PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., No. 17-1705, holding that whether the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) 2006 order interpreting the...more
It is a busy TCPA news day! The United States Supreme Court has released its decision in PDR Networks, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., a TCPA junk fax class action. The decision is available for download...more
Yesterday morning, the Supreme Court issued its decision in PDR Network, LLC, et al. v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. At issue was whether a TCPA-defendant in a civil case may contest the Federal Communications...more
If you follow daily TCPA news like we do, your head is probably spinning from this week’s developments. We normally digest TCPA developments for our readers in a monthly e-newsletter....more
In a unanimous decision on January 22, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that challenges to the Obama administration’s 2015 Clean Water Rule must be brought in federal district courts rather than directly in the courts of appeals....more
On January 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that challenges to the 2015 Waters of the United States Rule (the “WOTUS Rule” or “Rule”) belong in district court rather than the appellate court. The WOTUS Rule...more
On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Manning, in which the Court resolved a Circuit split concerning the jurisdictional provision of the Securities Exchange...more
On May 16, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. v. Manning, 578 U.S. __ (May 16, 2016), which resolved a longstanding circuit split as to the scope of exclusive...more
The Supreme Court held May 16 that the exclusive federal jurisdiction provision of the 1934 Securities Exchange Act means the same as the “arising under” test for federal-question jurisdiction and does not pre-empt state law...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on May 16, 2016 in Merrill Lynch v. Manning clarified the scope of federal jurisdiction under the Exchange Act in certain important respects, but also left open critical issues that may arise...more