Federal Court Strikes Down FDA Rule on LDTs - Thought Leaders in Health Law®
Episode 18 | Unpacking the Packing: A Perspective on the Efforts to Expand the Supreme Court
On February 18, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14215 “Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies,” Section 7 of which provides that: “[t]he President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are...more
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in four cases today: Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections, No. 24-568: This case involves an Illinois law that required mail-in ballots to be counted as long...more
The Supreme Court is prepared to determine the legality of a powerful but controversial judicial remedy — the universal injunction. The case, Trump v. CASA, Inc., reached the Justices after a lower court barred the Trump...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) violated AT&T's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial and right to adjudication by an Article III court when...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dismissed Incyte’s appeal of a Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision, holding that a disappointed validity challenger lacked appellate standing to challenge the Board’s final...more
Key Takeaways - - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit vacated a $57 million fine levied by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) against AT&T. - The court ruled the FCC's in-house enforcement proceedings...more
On March 24, in Kelsey Cascadia Rose Juliana et al. v. United States of America et al., the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a petition to hear an appeal from Our Children’s Trust from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision...more
On March 10, 2025, a federal judge in Maryland clarified the scope of the nationwide preliminary injunction that enjoins key portions of two of President Donald Trump’s diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)–related executive...more
The Honorable Pauline Newman, Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has been battling her suspension from the Court imposed by the Judicial Council for two years (including proceedings leading...more
In June 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court sunk what remained of Chevron deference. Under that doctrine, tracing back to the 1984 decision Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense...more
The end of the Supreme Court’s recent term saw two major decisions in the field of administrative law: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The Loper Bright decision, which...more
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued its decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which put an end to Chevron Deference. Chevron Deference was a doctrine that required courts to...more
In a landmark decision issued last week, SEC v. Jarkesy, the Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment guarantees a defendant a jury trial when the SEC seeks civil penalties against the defendant for committing securities...more
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court published a landmark ruling that overturned decades of judicial deference to government agencies under the so-called Chevron doctrine. This decision fundamentally alters the landscape of...more
At the end of its 2024 term, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down four decisions limiting the power of federal agencies. While none of those decisions involved a labor and employment agency, all of them could transform labor...more
On June 28, 2024, in a maximalist decision that went further than even the most ardent opponents of Chevron deference thought possible, the Supreme Court finally and emphatically overruled Chevron deference, the watershed...more
“Landmark” perhaps gets applied too often to court decisions these days, but the Supreme Court of the United States this week decided a pair of cases—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Securities and Exchange Commission...more
Because bankruptcy courts were created by Congress rather than under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, there is a disagreement over whether bankruptcy courts, like other federal courts, have "inherent authority" to impose...more
Controversy regarding the claimed increased partisanship of the U.S. Supreme Court and efforts to change the Court's makeup by expanding its numbers continues to be in the headlines. So Shoveling Smoke thought it would be...more
In Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, the U.S. Supreme Court has added another piece of the puzzle needed to resolve the long-discussed issue of bankruptcy court authority. This issue stems from the structure of the...more
Four years ago, in Stern v. Marshall, the Supreme Court stunned many observers by re-visiting separation of powers issues regarding the jurisdiction of the United States bankruptcy courts that most legal scholars had viewed...more
The continuing saga of the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Stern v. Marshall decision took a major turn Tuesday when the Court issued its ruling in the Wellness International Network, Limited v. Sharif case. Before...more
On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wellness International Network, Ltd., et al. v. Sharif. The Wellness decision clarifies one of the most significant open issues created four years ago by the...more
On Thursday I published a blog article entitled Will “Wellness Make Us Better?, in which I posed the question of whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court would finally rule on whether or not bankruptcy courts can, in Stern type...more
On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, (No. 13-935), holding that Article III does not prevent bankruptcy judges from entering final judgment on claims that seek only...more