Podcast - Hot Topics in Nuclear Waste
On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 opinion holding that U.S. district courts are not bound to follow a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute even though the Hobbs Administrative Orders Review Act (“Hobbs...more
In a decision with sweeping implications for the administrative law and the regulation of tele-communications practices—to say nothing of one of the most dangerous class-action devices in history—the Supreme Court ruled in...more
Key Takeaways: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Hobbs Act does not require district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to follow federal administrative agencies’ legal interpretations of federal statutes....more
In one of its final decisions in 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court curtailed the authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in interpreting the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), signaling a broader...more
In McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226, 2025 WL 1716136 (U.S. June 20, 2025), the Supreme Court determined that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to...more
Supreme Court just handed down the widely-watched decision in McLaughlin Chriopractric v. McKesson. Held: The Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency’s interpretation of a...more
The Administrative Order Review Act (better known as the "Hobbs Act") grants "exclusive jurisdiction" to the federal courts of appeals to "determine the validity" of most FCC orders and rules and certain other agency orders....more
In a highly anticipated decision with broad implications for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) litigants, on June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v....more
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., holding that the federal Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to a...more
Following in the wake of last years’ Loper Bright and Relentless, Inc. decisions that ended agency deference, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday in McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc., Inc. v. McKesson Corp. that the Hobbs Act...more
Companies that rely on digital marketing are awaiting a pivotal decision from the US Supreme Court on how federal courts should treat a Federal Communications Commission interpretation of a law against junk faxes. ...more
Are district courts bound by both interpretive and final rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission? The U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision to hear the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates Inc. v. McKesson...more
On January 21, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., a case and decision that may have an outsized impact on the nature of judicial review of...more
Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case that will likely determine whether a federal district court or the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has the final say on how to interpret the Telephone...more
Just a few months after the United States Supreme Court voted 6-3 to overturn the long-standing and widely applied legal precedent known as “Chevron deference,” it has agreed to hear a case that could entirely shift the...more
The United States Supreme Court will hear the case McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, which poses the question of whether federal district courts, under the Hobbs Act, must adhere to the rulings...more
On Friday, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal agencies are no longer entitled to deference when they interpret ambiguous statutes. Loper Bright thus overrules an earlier Supreme...more
A fax is a fax is a fax… or is it? In a recent ruling in the long-running TCPA junk fax case Career Counseling, Inc. v. AmeriFactors Financial Group, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the statute’s prohibition...more
Hughes v. Northwestern University, No. 19-1401: Whether allegations that a defined-contribution retirement plan paid or charged its participants fees that substantially exceeded fees for alternative available investment...more
Questions over the extent to which district courts must defer to FCC rulings have had a significant impact over key legal issues that drive outcomes in the TCPA litigation. Prior to the Supreme Court’s opinion in PDR Network,...more
Recall that, a couple months ago, the Supreme Court granted the Petition for Certiorari in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., a TCPA junk fax class action proceeding, setting the stage for what we...more
An upcoming Supreme Court decision may determine if agency interpretive guidance of regulations under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act controls on issues before district courts, or whether those courts can independently...more
In September 2018, in Marks v. San Diego Crunch, a unanimous Ninth Circuit three-judge panel held that the TCPA’s definition of an automatic dialing system (ATDS) includes telephone equipment that can automatically dial phone...more
On November 13, 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the amount of deference a federal court is required to give the Federal Communications Commission in determining what constitutes an unsolicited advertisement within...more
Are courts bound by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) rulings and orders in deciding Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) cases? The United States Supreme Court has agreed to take on a case raising this very issue. ...more