While legal analysts focus on landmark Supreme Court decisions each term, equally significant are the cases the Court declines to hear. These certiorari denials often reveal critical jurisprudential trends that shape litigation strategy and client outcomes.
Our attorneys examine three recent cert denials with far-reaching implications:
1. Peterson v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. (cert. denied February 2025): Arbitration Clauses Remain Enforceable Even in Whistleblower Retaliation Cases
The Court’s refusal to review Peterson v. Minerva Surgical reinforces the expanding reach of arbitration agreements—even in sensitive whistleblower retaliation claims. When Dan Peterson, a former area sales director, alleged retaliation for reporting corporate misconduct, his challenge to an unfavorable arbitration ruling met a swift end.
This denial highlights several consequential patterns:
- The continued absence of circuit splits regarding arbitration enforcement
- Federal courts’ nearly uniform deference to arbitration provisions
- The Court’s reluctance to establish whistleblower carve-outs from arbitration mandates
Despite compelling arguments from Lift Our Voices (co-founded by a prominent whistleblower) about how forced arbitration can silence employees and shield corporate misconduct, the Court moved decisively—just one month from distribution to denial. Peterson’s pro se status further illustrates the formidable challenges whistleblowers face when contesting arbitration outcomes.
2. Carter v. United States (cert. denied February 2025): Feres Doctrine Persists Despite Criticism
In February 2025, the Court declined to review Carter v. United States, rejecting an opportunity to reconsider the controversial Feres doctrine that immunizes the federal government from liability for service-related injuries to military personnel.
Petitioner Ryan Carter sought relief after being paralyzed following spine surgery at Walter Reed while on inactive duty status. His case presented a compelling opportunity to narrow Feres without undermining military discipline—the doctrine’s traditional justification.
Justice Thomas’s extraordinary 14-page dissent characterized Feres as “incoherent,” “unjust,” and a “judicial failure.” His forceful critique signals growing discomfort with the doctrine’s broad application, particularly in medical contexts not implicating battlefield decisions or chain-of-command concerns.
3. Consumers’ Research v. Consumer Product Safety Commission (cert. denied October 21, 2024): Certain Independent Agencies Stay Intact, For Now
In Consumers’ Research the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to the independence of the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), a small federal agency run by a bipartisan group of commissioners.
By law, the President can only remove the CPSC’s commissioners for serious misconduct, not for policy disagreements. The challengers argued this setup was unconstitutional, saying the President should have more control over agency leadership. But the Fifth Circuit upheld the current structure of the agency, relying on precedent that gives Congress some power to protect leaders of multi-member agencies from removal.
The Court’s decision not to take the case isn’t surprising. The Court had very recently decided two similar cases concerning the independence of federal agencies. Despite some differences from those recent decisions, Consumers’ Research also presented plaintiffs who weren’t directly regulated by the agency, no split among lower courts, and the risk of upending the structure of many similar federal agencies.
Still, this issue isn’t going away. A related case, Trump v. Wilcox, raises similar questions about the President’s removal power—and has already drawn attention from the Court. Wilcox also involves questions of federal courts’ injunctive authority, which may add to (or ultimately explain) the Court’s interest in the case. Nevertheless, how the Justices handle Wilcox may give a clearer signal about the future of independent agencies.
