On Jan. 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued an order blocking enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) requiring (among other things) employers of 100 or more employees to require employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or ensure unvaccinated employees are tested for COVID-19 weekly ...
On January 23, 2023, after hearing an extensive oral argument, the Supreme Court dismissedIn re Grand Jury, 23 F.4th1088 (9th Cir. 2021),cert granted, 143 S. Ct. 80 (2022), a highly anticipated case about how the attorney-client privilege applies to “multipurpose” communications ...
phttps://www.huntonak.com/images/content/9/3/v2/93738/sc-clarifies-undue-hardship-standard-for-title-vii-religious-acc ...
On August 28, 2017, the California Supreme Court issued a 5-2 split decision in California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, S234148. The Court held that a revenue measure proposed by citizen initiative is not “imposed by local government," and does not trigger the procedural limitations of Article XIII C of the California Constitution,[1] as a result ...
Prior to imposing, extending, or increasing any tax, a public agency must submit the tax to a vote of the electorate. However, public agencies need no such approval to impose certain types of fees. In Jacks v. City of Santa Barbara, the Supreme Court considered whether and when municipal franchise fees—fees charged to utilities and others for the use of public rights of way—constitute taxes requiring voter approval ...
Under article 253(d) of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC), when an association, partnership or corporation commits an act or omission that violates the Tax Code, the penalty "shall be imposed on the partner, president, general manager, branch manager, treasurer, officer-in-charge, and the employees responsible for the violation". This means that any of the persons enumerated may be criminally prosecuted for the corporation or partnership's criminal act or omission under the code ...
Confronted with three different standing tests applied by the Circuit courts to Lanham Act false advertising claims, the Supreme Court has answered the question of which test to apply: “None of the above.” In Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., Slip op. March 25, 2014, Justice Scalia, writing for a unanimous Court, rejected each of the tests employed by the Circuits in favor of a “zone of interests” test ...
The United States Supreme Court heard arguments earlier this month in three important securities cases regarding the preemptive scope of the federal securities laws. At issue is the meaning of the phrase “in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security” under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (“SLUSA”) ...
On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc., v. University of North Carolina (collectively “SFFA”) that Harvard and the University of North Carolina (“UNC”) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by impermissibly considering race when making undergraduate admissions decisions ...
InLagos v. United States, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling that limits the ability of corporate victims of fraud to seek reimbursement of legal fees for internal investigations. The case began when GE Capital discovered that Sergio Lagos falsified numerous invoices for his company, which he used as collateral to obtain tens of millions of dollars in loans from GE Capital ...
The Supreme Court has declined to take up the issue of False Claims Act (FCA) “objective falsity” in relation to medical opinions, denying certiorari in paired cases from the Third Circuit (United States ex rel. Druding v. Care Alternatives, Inc.)[1] and Ninth Circuit (Winter ex rel. United States v. Gardens Reg’l Hosp. & Med. Ctr., Inc.) ...
The Supreme Court this past week denied certiorari in United States ex rel. Schneider v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., an appeal from a D.C. Circuit case affirming the district court’s dismissal of a qui tam FCA action. See No. 19-678, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 2079 (Apr. 6, 2020). In so doing, the Court declined to address the emerging circuit split over the extent of the government’s dismissal power in qui tam cases ...
When the Supreme Court accepted the cert petition to resolve a Circuit split regarding the False Claims Act’s statute of limitations when the government does not intervene, it created thepotential that the Court would extend the limitations periodfor private relators’ FCA actions. That is exactly what happened ...
In Lloyd v Google, the Supreme Court denied claims for mere 'loss of control' and ruled against mass class actions for data claims. Here, Philip Tansley and Matthew MacLachlan consider the court's reasoning and the broader implications for such claims. Case In its landmark judgment today, the Supreme Court unanimously held that a representative class action brought on behalf of approximately 4 ...
The Supreme Court has issued Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 20-12-01-SC (Re: Proposed Guidelines on the Conduct of Videoconferencing) dated December 9, 20201 (Court Videoconferencing Guidelines) to ensure that hearings via videoconferencing are conducted in an orderly manner and that the constitutional rights of the accused are protected ...
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that competitors may bring private suits alleging unfair competition under the Lanham Act based on misleading and deceptive food and beverage labels that are regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), overruling a Ninth Circuit decision ...
The Supreme Court recently held that a federal agency’s response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request could bar a later False Claims Act case based on the information disclosed. In Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk, 563 U.S. __ (2011),1 the Court held that a response to a FOIA request is a “public disclosure” in an “administrative report” under the False Claims Act ...
On Monday, March 26, 2012, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Simmonds. The Court held that an alleged failure by a corporate insider to file a short-swing profit disclosure under Section 16(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 does not indefinitely toll the two-year statute of limitations on another party’s claim for recovery of such profits under Section 16(b) ...
On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court held in California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., that the three-year time limit in the Securities Act of 1933 is a statute of repose that is not subject to equitable tolling. This means that shareholders will not be able to rely on the filing of a proposed class action lawsuit to suspend the running of a statute of repose on their individual claims ...
The United States Supreme Court recently held that a plaintiff need not show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff's trademark as a requirement for recovering the defendant’s profits.Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil Grp., Inc., No. 18-1233, 2020 U.S. LEXIS 2408, at *12-13 (U.S. Apr. 23, 2020). Romag Fasteners, Inc. sued Fossil, Inc ...
In what it described as “an easy decision,” the U.S. Supreme Court issued its eagerly anticipated decision in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC et al. v. Amalgamated Bank 1 on May 29, 2012 ...
This is a briefing on Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 20-07-04-SC (2020 Interim Rules on Remote Notarization of Paper Documents) dated July 14, 20201 (“RON Rules”), a COVID-19 related issuance. In general, signatories of documents to be notarized have to appear before the notary generally at the latter’s place of business ...
Plaintiffs frequently bring class action claims for alleged statutory violations for which Congress has provided private rights of action and statutory damages. In many of these instances, plaintiffs do not allege any specific, tangible harm (such as monetary loss), but claim that the violation of these so-called “statutory rights” by itself constitutes injury-in-fact sufficient to satisfy standing requirements. This week, the Supreme Court held in Spokeo v ...
At the end of its 2023 term, the United States Supreme Court handed down several buzz-worthy decisions. Two opinions may have substantial and lasting impacts on employers and their efforts to promote diversity and inclusion. In Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General, the Court addressed religious accommodation and clarified the parameters of its “undue burden” standard set forth in its prior decision in Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63 (1977). 2023 U.S. LEXIS 2790 ...
Debtors hoping to discharge their obligations in bankruptcy may find a new hurdle based on the US Supreme Court’s Feb. 22 ruling. Relying on the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code, and Congress’s use of passive voice, the Supreme Court held that funds obtained through fraud, regardless of who committed such fraud, are not dischargeable through bankruptcy ...
