Supreme Court of the United States

The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary... more +
The United States Supreme Court is the highest court of the United States and is charged with interpreting federal law, including the United States Constitution. The Court's docket is largely discretionary with only a limited number of cases granted review each term.  The Court is comprised of one chief justice and eight associate justices, who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to hold lifetime positions. less -
News & Analysis as of

US Supreme Court: state agencies must be "actively supervised" to enjoy antitrust immunity – 5 tips

Do you sit on a state board or are you regulated by one? If so, the United States Supreme Court decided a case last Wednesday that directly affects you. Until recently, many assumed that a state agency or board enjoyed...more

Looking Back at Five Years of Citizens United

This month marked the fifth anniversary of the Supreme Court handing down its decision in Citizens United v. FEC. More than perhaps most other recent Supreme Court decisions, Citizens United has remained in the public...more

No Active State Supervision, No Antitrust Immunity for North Carolina State Dental Board

On February 25, 2015, in a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Kennedy, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) decision finding that the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners (Board), although a state...more

High Court Divided: Is A Fish A Tangible Object?

Gulf fisherman John Yates was cited by a federally-deputized Florida Fish & Wildlife officer for having caught a few red grouper that were about an inch under the 20” minimum limit at the time (they’d have been legal under...more

Supreme Court Finds that Regulatory Boards Composed of “Active Market Participants” are Subject to Antitrust Laws if Not Actively...

Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, finding that North Carolina’s state board of dental examiners was subject to antitrust scrutiny under the Sherman Act...more

Tibble Supreme Court Argument: Fiduciaries Must Monitor Investments

Section 413 of ERISA provides in general that no action for breach of fiduciary duty may be brought after the earlier of: (1) six years after (A) the date of the last action which constituted a part of the breach, or (B) in...more

Second Circuit Holds Individualized Damages, Standing Alone, Do Not Preclude Class Certification

Two years ago, in Comcast v. Behrend et.al, the Supreme Court caught the attention of employers facing class action lawsuits by holding that plaintiffs cannot “show Rule 23(b)(3) predominance” when “[q]uestions of individual...more

Supreme Court Finds Trademark Tacking to Be a Jury Question - Hana Financial, Inc. vs. Hana Bank, et. al.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision stated that “because the tacking inquiry operates from the perspective of the ordinary purchaser or consumer, we hold that a jury should make this...more

Supreme Court Rejects the Government’s “Fishy” Interpretation of Sarbanes-Oxley Obstruction Statute

On February 25, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Yates v. United States.1 This case involved the interpretation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1519, a statute that was added as part of the...more

Supreme Court rules that state professional boards must be actively supervised to avoid federal antitrust scrutiny

The U.S. Supreme Court, on February 25, 2015, reaffirmed that state professional boards controlled by same-profession individuals which are not "actively supervised" do not enjoy Parker v. Brown-based state action immunity...more

The State Action Doctrine: Active Supervision Reigns Supreme

On February 25, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 2015 U.S. LEXIS 1502 (2015). In the 6–3 opinion, the Court held that an action taken by...more

Supreme Court Delivers another Blow to State Action Antitrust Immunity

Today’s Supreme Court decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission is the second time in two years that the Court has spoken on the state action exemption to the federal antitrust...more

Supreme Court Rules NC Dentist Board Not Immune From Antitrust Scrutiny

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that state professional boards comprised of active market participants are not immune from antitrust laws even though the boards are formally designated as a state agency, unless the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Antitrust Protection for State Professional Boards

In a 6-3 decision in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, the United States Supreme Court ruled today that state professional boards comprised of active professionals in the occupation...more

Five Health Care Developments Important to Employers

Perhaps never before have employers faced so many challenges when it comes to health care issues affecting their workforce. Congress may try to amend the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). The Supreme Court of the United States is...more

Supreme Court Decides North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission

On February 25, 2015, the Supreme Court decided North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 13-534. The Court held that the North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners was not immune...more

Statement of Samantha Elauf Following Oral Argument at the Supreme Court in EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

WASHINGTON-- Samantha Elauf filed the original charge of religious discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that led to today's argument in the Supreme Court. She has the following statement...more

Supreme Court Announces Standard of Review for Factual Issues Underlying Patent Claim Construction: Implications Beyond Patent Law

The United States Supreme Court, clarifying the proper standard of review of factual findings arising during a court’s construction of patent claims, held that such “evidentiary underpinnings” should be reviewed for clear...more

IRS Announces That It Will No Longer Refund FICA Taxes on Severance Payments

The IRS recently announced that severance payments are taxable wages under FICA, and thus employers who seek tax refunds on those payments will be denied. The IRS’s position reflects the United States Supreme Court’s ruling...more

Supreme Court Decides Yates v. United States

On February 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Yates v. United States, No. 13-7451, holding that fish are not “tangible objects” within the meaning of 18 U. S. C. §1519, a federal law providing that a person who...more

Supreme Court Interprets Sarbanes-Oxley Evidence Destruction Provisions

We now know that Sarbanes-Oxley does not apply to fish . . . While conducting an offshore inspection of a commercial fishing vessel in the Gulf of Mexico, a federal agent found that the ship’s catch contained...more

Supreme Court Considers Impact of TTAB "Likelihood of Confusion" Finding on Trademark Infringement Litigation

On December 2, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Industries, Inc.. The question before the Supreme Court is how much deference, if any, a federal district court hearing...more

Post-Alice District Court Decisions Regarding the Patent Eligibility of Computer-Implemented Inventions

It has been about 9 months since Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International was decided by the Supreme Court. In that time, many district court and Federal Circuit cases have resulted in grants of summary judgment or dismissal...more

Appellate Practice Roundup - February 2015

Over the past few months, a number of important appellate procedure opinions have issued in federal and California appellate courts regarding posttrial motions, appealability, and appellate jurisdiction under various...more

What Will Be the Fate of Your (Facially Neutral) Light-Duty Policies After Young v. UPS?

With its forthcoming decision in Young v. United Parcel Service, Inc., the Supreme Court of the United States is expected to bring some much-needed clarity to the issue of what the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), 42...more

3,818 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 153