Quick Guide to Administrative Hearings
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 11: Three Cheers for Beer: A Discussion of Craig v. Boren
The M&A Word of the Day® from the Book of Jargon® – Global Mergers & Acquisitions Is Revlon Doctrine
Konczal: Dodd-Frank Reforms Get Roughed Up in Court
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a district court in an enforcement proceeding is not bound by an agency’s pre-enforcement interpretation of a statute. Rather, as the Court held in McLaughlin Chiropractic...more
In the last month, we have gained additional insight into the future of the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) regulation and how class action litigation might be shaped by...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday, June 27, that federal district courts may not issue “universal” injunctions (the term the Court used instead of “nationwide” injunctions), as it decided that doing so is beyond their...more
With its recent ruling in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. ___ (2025), the U.S. Supreme Court has continued its trend of reining in the power of agencies and giving litigants more avenues...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
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
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court released a landmark opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc., v. McKesson Corp., further reshaping the scope of judicial review of agency action. ...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
In a landmark decision released on June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the Hobbs Act does not require federal district courts to treat Federal Communications Commission (FCC) orders as binding precedent in private...more
In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, addressing the scope of judicial review under the Hobbs Act. The decision marks a...more
On January 21, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation. As discussed here, the primary issue is whether the Hobbs Act, which limits judicial...more
After denying the defendants’ petitions for panel and en banc rehearing in the Blair v. Rent-a-Center appeals, the Ninth Circuit has granted their motions to stay the issuance of the Court’s mandates for 90 days pending the...more
On January 12, 2018, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Animal Science Products v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. (In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation), No. 16-1220. The issue before the Supreme Court is...more
In a recent series of articles, we asked whether “class arbitration” — meaning the utilization of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 class action protocol in an arbitration proceeding — is ultimately viable. Given the nature of...more
Employee Who Needed To Assist Disabled Son Could Proceed With "Associational Disability Discrimination" Claim - Castro-Ramirez v. Dependable Highway Express, Inc., 246 Cal. App. 4th 180 (2016) - Luis...more
In last year’s Mach Mining decision, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is required to attempt to settle (“conciliate”) discrimination claims before bringing suit against...more
“The arbitrator’s construction holds, however good, bad, or ugly.” This was the succinct message delivered on June 10, 2013, by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Oxford Health Plans LLC v. Sutter, No. 12-135, which challenged...more