Search Google

Commentary

More Commentary >>

1-20 of 171

Court Hears Argument in Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham

4/25/2012

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Monday, April 16, 2012, regarding whether, as a result of unique industry circumstances, pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) are entitled to overtime pay under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). view more

Court Rules that Private Attorneys May Assert Qualified Immunity as a Defense

4/19/2012

Private attorneys representing government entities are entitled to assert qualified immunity as a defense to civil rights claims, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled on Tuesday in Filarsky v. Delia. The Court’s decision allows private attorneys to rely on the same protections that their public counterparts use. view more

Supreme Court Decides Kappos v. Hyatt

4/19/2012

In Kappos v. Hyatt, 566 U.S. ___ (2012), decided on April 18, 2012, a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed a Federal Circuit decision that (a) a patent applicant faces no limitations on their ability to introduce new evidence in a Section 145 (35 U.S.C. § 145) proceeding beyond those already in place in the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (b) the district court must take de novo factual findings of both new evidence presented on a disputed question of fact and the administrative record before the PTO, and (c) the district court may consider what weight to afford any new evidence taking into account whether the applicant had an opportunity to present the new evidence before the PTO.

view more

Court Sides with Generic Manufacturers in Caraco

4/18/2012

In Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd., v. Novo Nordisk A/S, decided April 17, 2012, the Supreme Court held in a unanimous decision, that a generic manufacturer may employ the counterclaim provision of 21 U.S.C. §355 to force a brand manufacturer to correct a patent “use code” listed in the Orange Book that inaccurately describes the brand’s patent to cover an unpatented method of using a drug. view more

No Pecuniary Harm, No Foul - FAA v. Cooper

4/4/2012

In FAA v. Cooper, decided on March 28, 2012, the Supreme Court held that the federal Privacy Act does not authorize recovery of emotional distress damages. The Privacy Act was enacted in 1974 to provide safeguards against the disclosure of confidential records between government agencies. Recognizing that a government waiver of sovereign immunity must be unambiguous, the Supreme Court held the Act could not unambiguously be read to authorize non-pecuniary damages. view more

Constitutionality of Individual Mandate Will Be a Closer Vote Than Originally Thought

4/4/2012

The second day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act addressed whether Congress had power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution to enact the individual mandate.

view more

Supreme Court Likely to Move Forward on Affordable Care Act Cases

4/4/2012

The first day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act addressed whether thechallenges to the Affordable Care Act are barred by the Tax Anti-Injunction Act, a statute which provides that “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax may be maintained in any court by any person.” 26 U.S.C. § 7421(a). If the Court concludes that the Tax Anti-Injunction Actdoes not apply, the cases challenging the Affordable Care Act’s constitutionality may proceed. Otherwise, the Court may be required to defer its ruling on those issues until 2014. view more

Medicaid Expansion May Fall If Supreme Court Determines it Coerces States

3/30/2012

The final session of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act focused on whether the expansion of Medicaid in the Affordable Care Act violates State Sovereignty. view more

The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate May Affect the Fate of the Entire Affordable Care Act

3/30/2012

The final day of oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act focused on two separate issues. The first issue was argued in the morning and picked up on yesterday’s discussion regarding the constitutionality of the individual mandate.

view more

Continuing its Trend Away from Artificially Restrictive Views of Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction, the Supreme Court in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC Unanimously Finds Concurrent State and Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

3/27/2012

On January 18, 2012, a unanimous Supreme Court decided an important federal subject matter jurisdiction case which further evidences its now eight-year trend away from historical but artificially cramped understandings of such subject matter jurisdiction. view more

“What All the Fuss Is About”: The Supreme Court Confirms Property Owners’ Right to Challenge EPA Compliance Orders Issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act

3/26/2012

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the federal government’s argument that compliance orders issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. (the “CWA”), cannot be challenged in court. In a unanimous opinion issued on March 21, 2012, the Court held that such orders constitute “final agency action” that can be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(a) (the “APA”). Sackett v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 566 U.S. ___, No. 10-1062 (Mar. 12, 2012). In so doing, the Court has weakened one of the favored arrows in the EPA’s enforcement quiver. view more

Supreme Court Turns Its Attention to Corporate Liability Under International Law, Hears Oral Argument in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.

2/29/2012

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on February 28, 2012 in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., a case raising the controversial issue of corporate liability for alleged violations of international law. view more

Supreme Court Decides Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California

2/23/2012

The U.S. Supreme Court handed down an opinion on February 22, 2012, dealing with a procedurally complicated course of facts surrounding three statutes enacted by the California legislature reducing certain Medicaid reimbursement rates. Medicaid is generally funded by states but includes federal subsidization, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) administers Medicaid and its purely federal counterpart, Medicare. The California statutes, enacted in 2008 and 2009, reduced the rates at which Medicaid payments would reimburse certain providers. view more

United State Supreme Court To Reconsider Affirmative Action in Higher Education

2/21/2012

The United States Supreme Court will reconsider the issue of affirmative action in higher education for the first time since its 2003 decision in Grutter v. Bollinger. In Grutter the Court held that, “The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the [University of Michigan] Law School’s narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” Today, the Court agreed to hear the appeal of Abigail Fisher, a white student, who alleges she was denied admission to the University of Texas because of the color of her skin. view more

Court Hears Arguments in Kappos v. Hyatt

2/1/2012

The issues to be decided in this case are as follows: (1) whether a plaintiff, who is appealing the denial of an application of a patent by commencing a civil action against the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in a federal district court pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 145, may introduce new evidence that could have been presented to the agency in the first instance; and (2) whether, when new evidence is introduced under Section 145, the district court may decide de novo the factual questions to which the evidence pertains, without giving deference to the prior decision of the PTO.

view more

Court Hears Argument in Filarsky v. Delia

1/24/2012

The Supreme Court is one step closer to determining whether a private attorney is entitled to qualified immunity when he is representing a governmental entity after recently holding oral argument in Filarsky v. Delia. view more

Federal Meat Inspection Act Preempts State Law

1/24/2012

On January 23, 2012, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in the case of National Meat Association v. Harris, No. 10-224.

In its decision, the Court reversed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, reasoning that the Federal Meat Inspection Act (“FMIA”), 21 U.S.C 601, et seq., expressly preempts inconsistent state law. This decision is the latest in a long line of Supreme Court opinions that have historically and consistently affirmed the preemptive effect of the FMIA.

view more

Court's Decision Extends Copyright Protection to Foreign Works

1/19/2012

On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court decided the case of Golan v. Holder, 10-545, in which the Court, in a 6-2 ruling, upheld Congress’s decision in § 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) to extend copyright protection to millions of foreign works – including, for example, Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf – that were previously in the public domain. In reaching its decision, the Court rejected claims brought under the Copyright and Patent Clause and First Amendment by a group of “orchestra conductors, musicians, publishers, and others who formerly enjoyed free access to works § 514 removed from the public domain.” view more

Court Rules Both State and Federal Courts Have Jurisdiction Over TCPA Claims

1/19/2012

On January 18, 2012, the Supreme Court issued an unanimous opinion in Mims v. Arrow Financial Services, LLC and reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. In Mims, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) grants state courts exclusive jurisdiction over private TCPA claims, or whether consumers can file such claims in either state or federal courts. view more

Court issues opinion in Minneci

1/18/2012

On January 10, 2012, the United States Supreme Court held in Pollard v. Minneci that a prisoner has no right of action for constitutional violations under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents against employees of a private prison operator. In Pollard, the prisoner allegedly suffered injuries while incarcerated in a private prison and sued the prison employees for violations of the Eighth Amendment and damages. view more

DRI Resources