Category: Supreme Court

Nine Questions, Nine Answers: The Supreme Court’s Decision Overruling ‘Chevron Deference’

On the second-to-last day of its term, the US Supreme Court issued its decisions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Dep’t of Commerce. These decisions overruled Chevron USA. v. National Resource Defense Council, the 40-year-old precedent that established the “Chevron” doctrine, which gave federal agencies a certain amount of deference to interpret statutes they administer.

The Chevron doctrine provides that when a statute is ambiguous — that is, when it is unclear whether US Congress has spoken directly to the precise issue at hand — courts must defer to the interpretation of the relevant agency as long as the agency interpretation of the statute is reasonable.

Since 1984, the Chevron doctrine has played a foundational role in administrative law and placed federal agencies as the primary interpreters of the statutes they administered. In recent years, many scholars and policy advocates have questioned whether the Supreme Court should, or would, overrule Chevron and reassert the judiciary’s primary role in interpreting statutes.

The Loper Bright decision is available here. Understanding that for many, this decision has resulted in a deep dive into arcane issues of constitutional law and regulatory policy, below we ask and answer nine questions about the decision, its background, context, and likely impact.

What happened?

CASE BACKGROUND

Both Loper Bright and Relentless involve the Magnuson-Stevens Act, a law that empowers the US Secretary of Commerce and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to require certain fishing vessel operators to provide space onboard their vessels for federal observers tasked with ensuring compliance with various federal regulations.

To implement the Magnuson-Stevens Act, NMFS issued a rule requiring the fishing companies, rather than the government, to pay the costs and salary of the observers (roughly $710 per day). The petitioners in Loper Bright, four family-operated herring fishing companies, argued that the Act did not authorize the agency to impose these fees and challenged the rule before the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Relentless involved a challenge to the same regulations by two New England fishing vessels brought in Rhode Island federal court.

The appellate courts reviewing Loper Bright and Relentless, the US Courts of Appeals for the DC Circuit and the First Circuit, respectively, both applied the “Chevron doctrine” and ultimately upheld the NMFS regulation.

The DC Circuit found ambiguity in the statute that justified deferring to the agency’s reasonable interpretation. The First Circuit, in turn, cited back to the DC Circuit’s opinion in Loper Bright and similarly found the NMFS regulation did not exceed “the bounds of the permissible.” The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases and, considering them together, addressed whether it should uphold, limit, or overturn Chevron.

THE LOPER BRIGHT DECISION

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overruled Chevron and held that courts must “exercise their independent judgment” when interpreting federal statutes and may not defer to agency interpretations simply because they determine that a statute is ambiguous.

Tracing the history of “deference” from the Federalist Papers through the New Deal, the Court explained that the judicial branch has always had the exclusive responsibility for interpreting the law. While courts should and did give “respect” to executive branch interpretations, the final decision has historically been for the courts alone.

The judicial branch’s role, explained the Court, was solidified in 1946 with the passage of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which provides that the courts will decide “all relevant questions of law” arising during a review of agency actions. The courts may “seek aid” from the agency interpretations, but courts still must “independently interpret the statute and effectuate the will of congress.”

The Court concluded that Chevron deference is inconsistent with this history and the text of the APA, and further noted that federal agencies (as opposed to federal judges) have no special expertise when it comes to interpreting statutes.

Why now? 

Chevron has been in the Court’s crosshairs for the better part of a decade. Justice Neil Gorsuch pointed out in a lengthy concurrence in Loper Bright that the Supreme Court has not applied the Chevron doctrine since 2016. In a separate dissenting opinion last year — discussed here — Justice Gorsuch outlined how the Chevron doctrine has been subjected to so many competing interpretations and carve-outs that it has been rendered practically unworkable and incoherent.

Further, as the majority recognized, if courts defer to agencies under Chevron, that approach is inconsistent with other interpretive doctrines, most notably the “major questions doctrine,” which the Court used to strike down the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation of greenhouse gases in West Virginia v. EPAin 2022 because the Clean Air Act had not “expressly” granted EPA authority to require decarbonization of the US energy sector. (For more on this case, see here.)

Why is everyone talking about “Chevron deference”? 

Loper Bright, when read in conjunction with other decisions like West Virginia v. EPA from two terms ago or SEC v. Jarkesy, decided this term and discussed here, has been interpreted by some as the culmination of a long-term trend in which justices appointed by Republican presidents are reconfiguring US administrative law. Some view Chevron deference as a crucial safeguard to protect administrative agencies and permit them to regulate in highly technical areas based upon sometimes broad mandates from Congress without fear that a judge lacking technical knowledge or expertise would overstep. For those individuals, the end of Chevron deference represents a threat to the administrative state as we know it and raises fear that judges rather than agencies will decide the propriety of complex technical issues.

For others, Chevron deference represents a usurpation of the judiciary’s role in interpreting the law and leads to administrative agencies over-regulating and over-stepping the authority vested in them by Congress. Some groups may view Chevron deference as part and parcel of some unaccountable deep state. For these individuals, the end of Chevron deference represents a long-awaited victory against overactive agencies exerting authority beyond that granted by Congress.

For many, Chevron deference is simply an interpretive mandate that attempted to balance the judiciary’s role in statutory interpretation with some level of deference to the agency’s particular knowledge and expertise.

Any tendency to catastrophize may be exacerbated by this being a presidential election year. While the Loper Bright decision is important, the practical impact of it is debatable and not yet clear. While it is possible that Loper Bright will announce a sea change in administrative practice, it is also possible that Loper Bright’s calls for “administrative respect” but not “deference” will be modest in the near term. Further, the Court went out of its way to note that prior cases that applied Chevron to uphold an agency’s actions were still good law based on the doctrine of stare decisis and that “mere reliance on Chevron cannot constitute” a reason for “overruling such a holding[.]”

What does the decision mean for agency interpretations of their own regulations? 

It does not affect them. Kisor v. Wilkie, a 2019 Supreme Court decision, remains the key precedent governing judicial review of an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations. Significantly, Loper Bright cites Kisor favorably. Under Kisor,agency regulatory interpretations are entitled to deference if they are reasonable when viewed with traditional tools of statutory construction and courts should defer to agency interpretations that:

  • Are official positions of the agency made in some formal context.
  • Are consistent with prior formal interpretations of the agency.
  • Rest on actual agency expertise and not a litigation position.
  • Were issued with fair notice to regulated entities.

Citing the APA, the Court in Kisor stated that where a rule is ambiguous, “when a court defers to a regulatory reading, it acts consistently with [APA] Section 706.” For more on Kisor, see here.

Does the decision bar courts from considering an agency’s expert input?

It does not. The majority notes that

[d]elegating ultimate interpretive authority to agencies is simply not necessary to ensure that the resolution of statutory ambiguities is well informed by subject matter expertise. The better presumption is … that Congress expects courts to do their ordinary job of interpreting statutes, with due respect for the views of the Executive Branch. And to the extent that Congress and the Executive Branch may disagree with how the courts have performed that job in a particular case, they are of course always free to act by revising the statute.

Loper Bright acknowledges that Congress can delegate policymaking authorities and that reviewing courts should consider any such delegation in reviewing related challenges.

It also notes that “Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions. Many statutory cases call upon courts to interpret the mass of technical detail that is the ordinary diet of the law and courts did so without issue in agency cases before Chevron.” (Internal citation omitted.) The majority suggests that courts “do not decide such questions blindly” and that “parties” — including agencies — “and amici in such cases are steeped in the subject matter, and reviewing courts have the benefit of their perspective.”

In such circumstances, while “an agency’s interpretation of a statute ‘cannot bind a court,’ it may be especially informative ‘to the extent it rests on factual premises within’ [the agency’s] expertise.’” Accordingly, citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co., Executive Branch interpretations may still have particular “power to persuade, if lacking power to control.”

Will the decision allow regulatory challenges to be decided more quickly by courts?

Probably not. As we discussed above, nothing in Loper Bright portends that agencies now lack the ability to use technical input to justify how they have interpreted statutes they are tasked with executing. Further, the Loper Bright formulation of “respect” to agencies — with courts being empowered to make ultimate decisions about statutory interpretation — may procedurally look very much like pre-Loper Bright “deference” in terms of what sorts of briefs are filed, how technical evidence is submitted, or how courts process challenges.

Many disputes will also involve an additional layer of briefing related to the impact of the decision itself as challenges proceed through courts, particularly when there are questions about whether Congress delegated specific questions to agencies.

Will this decision result in more litigation? 

Yes. Post-Loper Bright, we can expect increase in challenges to regulations across the government, with parties evaluating what pre-Loper Bright regulations they can encourage the Court to revisit, especially in light of the Court’s decision in Corner Post v. Board of Governors, which effectively relaxes APA-related statutes of limitations in some cases. This litigation will occur even though the Loper Bright majority attempted to stem the tide by stating that agency rules which were enforceable before the decision remain good law for now. As we have discussed before, many regulatory challenges are filed in forums perceived to be hostile to regulation. Those cases will then percolate through appellate courts to flesh out what administrative litigation looks like after this decision, particularly on the issue of how courts can appropriately parse out statutory interpretation, which is in the province of the courts from decisions delegated by Congress to agencies.

The regulated community should use the Loper Bright decision as an opportunity to review key regulations that govern their operations and assess whether regulations are newly vulnerable. Our teams are ready to provide assistance in conducting this review.

Does the decision affect state law?

The Loper Bright decision binds only federal courts.

Traditionally, state courts have not uniformly adopted Chevron. Around half the states, including Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, allow for Chevron-style deference to state agencies. Others, including California and Virginia, allow some degree of deference depending on the particulars of agency decisions.

Given that Chevron deference has been controversial for some time, state legislatures in Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Nebraska, Ohio, and Tennessee have in recent years passed laws closely cabining deference afforded to state agencies. Florida voters amended the state constitution in 2018 to prohibit courts from deferring to state agencies. States including Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Michigan, Mississippi, and Utah have court decisions to the same effect. (See here for a more detailed discussion.)

What should we watch for next? 

In the coming days, many ArentFox Schiff teams will analyze how the Loper Bright decision will affect specific practice areas. Additionally, watch for our end-of-term wrap-up on administrative and environmental law.

© 2024 ArentFox Schiff LLP
For more news on Supreme Court Decision Overturning Chevron, visit the NLR Constitutional Law section.

Two Blockbuster U.S. Supreme Court Decisions May Spell End of NLRB’s Expansion of Reach of NLRA as Well as How Agency Prosecutes Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court issued two blockbuster decisions this week, both of which likely will curtail the ability of federal agencies, including the NLRB, to prosecute cases and expand the law.

In a 6-3 decision announced Thursday in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy et al., U.S., No. 22-859 (Jun. 27, 2024), the Supreme Court ruled that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant, the defendant is entitled to a trial by jury. As reported here, this decision could affect a future ruling in Space Exploration Technologies Corp., v. NLRB, No. 24-40315 (5th Cir. 2024), a case challenging the authority of National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) on the same grounds.

Perhaps more significant, a 6-2 decision announced Friday in Loper Bright Enterprises et al. v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, et al., No. 22-451 (Jun. 28, 2024), eliminates the deference given to federal agencies to interpret laws by reversing the Chevron decision.

Jarkesy: Viability of Agency Administrative Law Judges Put Into Question

Jarkesy Background
In 2013, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) initiated an enforcement action and sought civil penalties for alleged fraud against Defendants. Relying on relatively new authority conferred by the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, the SEC opted to adjudicate the matter itself before an agency ALJ. In 2014, the SEC ALJ issued a decision levying civil penalties as well as other relief against the Defendants.

Defendants petitioned for judicial review at the Fifth Circuit, which held in 2022 that the agency’s decision to have an ALJ adjudicate the case violated the Defendants’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. The Fifth Circuit also identified two further constitutional problems: (1) Congress violated the nondelegation doctrine by authorizing the SEC to choose whether to litigate this action in court or adjudicate the matter itself; and (2) the insulation of SEC ALJs from executive supervision, with two layers of for-cause removal protections, violated the separation of powers doctrine.

On March 8, 2023, the SEC appealed the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. Oral argument was heard on November 29, 2023.

Jarkesy Supreme Court Decision
The Supreme Court held that the Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution entitled Defendants to a jury trial where the SEC sought civil penalties for securities fraud. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts reasoned that the SEC’s antifraud provisions “replicate common law fraud” claims, which must be heard by a jury. As a result, where a claim brought by an agency (1) resembles common law causes of action; and (2) seeks a remedy traditionally obtained in a court of law, a Seventh Amendment jury right attaches to the claim.

The Court recognized an exception to this general rule under a “public rights” doctrine, which permits non-Article III courts to adjudicate matters that “historically could have been determined exclusively by [the executive and legislative] branches.” However, causes of action that are “quintessentially suits at common law” and not “closely intertwined” with a public right—like the anti-fraud provisions at issue here—are unable to utilize this exception and must be heard in Article III courts.

Because the jury trial issue resolved the case, the Court declined to reach the nondelegation or removal issues. As a result, the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Jarkesy on these issues remains good law.

Sotomayor Dissent in Jarkesy
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that Congress has latitude—via the Constitution as well as prior Supreme Court decisions—to assign the enforcement of civil penalties “outside the regular courts of law.” This would be the case “even if the Seventh Amendment would have required a jury where the adjudication of those rights is assigned to a federal court of law instead of an administrative agency.”

Justice Sotomayor also raised issue with the majority’s interpretation of a public rights doctrine. Notably, the dissent challenges the majority’s claim that most causes of actions that should be protected under the doctrine involve areas of the law where political branches “traditionally held exclusive power…and had exercised it.” To this end, Justice Sotomayor argues that the majority cannot distinguish between Congress’ enacting of statutes such as the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”) and its enacting of the Dodd-Frank Act. The dissent implies that neither labor relations nor securities were traditionally governed by political branches, thus (purportedly) refuting the majority’s reliance upon this principle.

NLRB Implications
Similar to the SEC, the NLRB utilizes ALJs to adjudicate violations of the NLRA. Contrary to the SEC, however, the NLRB ALJ scheme has been in place for decades. These judges hear and decide unfair labor practice cases in quasi-judicial hearings that affect the rights of parties to the cases. Moreover, unlike potential violations of the NLRA, the SEC is not always the exclusive forum for vindication of securities issues. The Department of Justice often prosecutes securities laws issues and private plaintiffs can bring lawsuits to vindicate civil claims. Contrast this with the NLRB, which is the exclusive forum for the vast majority of issues arising under the NLRA.

In the wake of the Fifth Circuit’s 2022 decision in Jarkesy, on January 4, 2024, Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (“SpaceX”) filed a complaint in the Southern District of Texas challenging the constitutionality of NLRB ALJs. SpaceX specifically argued that: (1) the NLRB’s structure is unconstitutional in that it limits the removal of NLRB ALJs and Board Members and permits Board Members to exercise executive, legislative, and judicial power in the same administrative proceeding; and (2) the Board’s expanded remedies constitute consequential damages, and therefore violate employers’ Seventh Amendment right to a trial-by-jury.

Because the Supreme Court in Jarkesy declined to reach the nondelegation or removal issues, the Fifth Circuit’s decision on these issues remains good law. This makes the current forum battle even more significant, as the Jarkesy Fifth Circuit opinion could provide dispositive precedent for SpaceX’s removal and nondelegation arguments. In addition, the Supreme Court’s ruling on the Seventh Amendment issue might support SpaceX’s argument that the Board’s expanded consequential damages remedies should be adjudicated in a trial by jury, depending on how the court interprets the current state of NLRB remedies.

As reported here, in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022), the NLRB expanded remedies under the NLRA to include “all direct or foreseeable pecuniary harms suffered as a result of the respondent’s unfair labor practice.” The Board has been committed to expanding remedies since 2021, when General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a memorandum on this subject. NLRB Regional Offices have also been aggressive in seeking these expanded remedies, which arguably are punitive rather than remedial in nature. In its Complaint, SpaceX used the Board’s position on remedies, coupled with the Jarkesy Fifth Circuit ruling, to argue that the Board has sanctioned compensatory relief that can only be issued through a trial by jury.

However, this position could be impacted by the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Thryv, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 23-60132 (5th Cir. May 24, 2024). In this decision, the Court vacated the Board’s ruling in Thryv, Inc., 372 NLRB No. 22 (2022) on the merits, and thus did not reach the consequential damages issue. The Court did however label this remedy as “draconian” and “a novel, consequential-damages-like labor law remedy.” The Board therefore will require a new case to codify the issuing of consequential damages. It remains to be seen how this ruling would impact SpaceX’s Seventh Amendment argument concerning consequential damages, which could be a key element of its potential reliance on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Jarkesy.

Court Deference to Agency Positions Dead: Chevron Reversal
In a massive blow to agency power, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday reversed Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), in a case involving a fishing industry rule. Under Chevron, on review of agency action, where the relevant statute was silent or ambiguous regarding a specific issue, courts were directed to defer to agencies and were not to “impose [their] own construction on the statute.” Thus, where an agency offered “a permissible construction of the statute,” courts were to defer to the agency even if the court would have reached a different conclusion. In the years since Chevron was issued, reviewing courts often remarked that they were bound to uphold an agency determination even if they disagreed with the interpretation. Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, held that Chevron could not be reconciled with the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), which commands “the reviewing court” to decide “all relevant questions of law” arising on review of agency action, which of course includes interpretation of the federal statute at issue. As a result, the majority determined that there should be no deference to agencies in answering legal questions, although deference is mandated for judicial review of agency policy-making and fact-finding. The majority concluded that, in deciding Chevron, the Supreme Court had required judges to “disregard their statutory duties,” which required this Court to “leave Chevron behind.”

Takeaways
These two Supreme Court decisions could substantially curtail the NLRB’s ability to bring and prosecute actions against parties (not just employers, but unions as well). While the Jarkesy Supreme Court decision is narrow, it could end the ability of the NLRB to bring certain claims in front of agency ALJs (all of whom are employed directly at the Board and who are not subject to removal). The pending SpaceX decision likely will further the development of the law, as it is a direct challenge to the NLRB adjudicatory scheme, and will also give a Circuit Court—and eventually maybe the Supreme Court—a chance to rule on additional constitutional challenges to federal agencies.

In addition, the reversal of Chevron likely will have a substantial effect on the review of NLRB cases. At time of unprecedented expansion of the reach of the NLRA—including finding non-compete agreements and confidentiality clauses unlawful—the end of Chevron deference allows a reviewing court the ability to disregard NLRB actions as not rooted in the NLRA or beyond the scope of the agency’s mandate. There is no doubt many challenges of NLRB actions will be brought as the probability of prevailing in a reviewing court has increased substantially with the end of deference.

As always, we will monitor decisions and agency actions to see how these important developments play out.

© 2024 Proskauer Rose LLP.

What Does the End of Chevron Deference Mean for Federal Health Care Programs?

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court rejected the doctrine of Chevron deference in the closely watched case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.[1] In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that Chevron’s rule that courts must defer to federal agencies’ interpretation of ambiguous statutes gave the executive branch interpretive authority that properly belonged with the courts. Moreover, the Court concluded that Chevron deference was inconsistent with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), holding that the APA requires courts to exercise independent judgment when deciding legal issues in the review of agency action.

Loper will have significant and immediate implications for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal agency charged with the administration of the federal health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. As detailed below, the Court’s decision sets a more exacting standard for courts to apply when reviewing HHS’s regulations and legal positions.

What Was Chevron Deference?

The doctrine of Chevron deference was established in 1984 by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.[2] In that case, the Court held when a “statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue” raised regarding a statute that the agency administers, “the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.”[3]

Although scholars have debated Chevron’s rationale at length, it generally was read to require deference based upon agencies’ presumed subject matter expertise and an assumption that Congress delegated authority to agencies—rather than courts—to fill in gaps in statutory schemes. Notably, the Supreme Court had not itself invoked Chevron deference since 2016, although lower courts have continued to rely on it regularly.[4]

What Did Loper Decide?

Loper involved two New England fishing companies appealing the D.C. Circuit’s ruling that applied Chevron deference to uphold the National Marine Fisheries Service’s interpretation of the Federal Magnuson-Stevens Act (the “Act”) as requiring fishermen to pay for the use of compliance monitors on certain fishing boats, even though the federal law is silent on who must pay. Petitioners used the case as a vehicle to present a broader challenge to Chevron,arguing that the doctrine has led to excessive deference to federal agencies, resulting in overregulation, the abdication of judicial responsibility to interpret statutes, and the unwarranted imposition of regulatory enforcement costs.

The Loper majority firmly rejected Chevron and held that the APA requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding legal questions that arise in reviewing agency action. As the majority held, “courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous.”[5]

Importantly, however, Loper noted that deference may still be afforded agencies in certain instances. First, the Court observed that the APA expressly mandates a deferential standard of review for agency policy-making and fact-finding.[6] Second, Loper explained that some statutes are best read to “delegate[] discretionary authority to an agency,” in which case a court’s role is to merely ensure the agency “engaged in ‘reasoned decisionmaking’” within that authority.[7] Lastly, Loper reaffirmed that an agency’s “expertise” remains “one of the factors” that may make an agency’s interpretation persuasive.[8]

How Will Loper Impact Federal Health Care Programs?

Loper’s directive that courts should construe statutes independently and not defer to agencies’ positions has enormous implications for providers and suppliers that participate in federal health care programs. Much of today’s health care landscape is governed by HHS’ regulations, impacting many Americans and much of the federal budget. For example, Medicare currently covers more than 67 million beneficiaries, and Medicare spending comprised 12% of the federal budget in 2022 and 21% of national health care spending in 2021.[9]

Federal health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid are established by statutes that set forth myriad requirements regarding the coverage of items and services, and how, when, and by whom those items and services may be furnished.[10] HHS’s various components—most notably the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)—have issued numerous, detailed regulations to implement these statutes. HHS’s components also include FDA, CDC, HRSA, AHRQ, OCR, NIH, and many others that intersect with health care providers and suppliers regularly.

Going forward under Loper, future challenges to agency regulations will take place upon a much different playing field. This has several important implications:

  • More Legal Challenges: We expect to see more legal challenges brought against HHS’s regulations as they are issued. Loper expressly stated that it “does not call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework,” so prior decisions affirming regulations should be stable.[11] But going forward, Loper means that courts have no “thumb on the scale” in favor of HHS’s legal positions, and so litigants may view Loper as increasing their odds of success. At the same time, this may create more uncertainty for providers and suppliers who must determine how to comply with new regulations under challenge.
  • Less Ability for HHS to Create New Programs or Impose New Requirements: Especially where HHS imposes new substantive requirements that are not clearly authorized by statute, HHS’s regulations may be vulnerable. For example, the challengers to CMS’s minimum-staffing requirements for nursing homes are sure to cite Loper.[12] Likewise, when HHS creates new programs or initiatives by regulation based on broad statutory language (e.g., HHS’s recent creation of rural emergency hospital regulations[13]), the regulations may be more vulnerable to challenges. As another example, legal challenges to FDA’s new rule on Laboratory Developed Tests are pending and will likely invoke Loper.[14]
  • More Incentive to Challenge Reimbursement Rules: Legal challenges are frequently brought to CMS’s rules governing reimbursement, which often have complicated statutory formulas subject to differing interpretations. Whereas in the past, courts often deferred to CMS’s interpretations,[15] Loper now creates more potential for providers and suppliers to seek more favorable legal interpretations to enhance reimbursement.
  • Slower and More Cautious Rulemaking: As HHS promulgates new regulations, it will now have to consider the enhanced litigation risk that Loper creates. This may lead to agencies slowing and proceeding more cautiously in rulemaking as agencies seek to craft defensible regulations.
  • Inconsistent Decisions by Courts: Because Loper directs courts to exercise independent judgment rather than defer to HHS’s interpretations, we expect that courts in different areas of the country may reach differing conclusions regarding HHS regulations. This may make certain geographic locations more advantageous for provider and supplier operations or expansions.

Conclusion

Going forward, courts will be more amenable than ever to siding with challenges to HHS regulations. This creates both challenges and opportunities for providers and suppliers who should carefully assess the legal basis for all new regulations.

The authors acknowledge the contributions of Callie Ericksen, a student at the University of California Davis Law School and 2024 summer associate at Foley & Lardner LLP.

[1] Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451 (June 28, 2024), together with Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, No. 22-1219, available here.

[2] 467 U.S. 837 (1984).

[3] Id. at 843 (emphasis added).

[4] See Am. Hosp. Ass’n (“AHA”) v. Becerra, 142 S. Ct. 1896, 1904 (2022) (determining that HHS’s preclusion of judicial review “lacks any textual basis,” remaining silent with respect to Chevron); Becerra v. Empire Health Found., 142 S. Ct. 2354, 2362 (2022) (illustrating that HHS’s reading aligns with the statute’s “text, context, and structure” in calculating the Medicare fraction for purposes of Medicare Part A benefits, without any mention of Chevron); Vanda Pharms., Inc. v. Ctrs. for Medicare & Medicaid Servs.,98 F.4th 483 (2024) (holding that CMS’s definitions of “line-extension” and “new formulation” did not conflict with the Medicaid statute).

[5] Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, slip op. 35 (June 28, 2024).

[6] Id. at slip. op. 14 (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(A), (E)).

[7] Id. at slip op. 18.

[8] Id. at slip op. 25 (citing Skidmore v. Swift & Co., 323 U.S. 134 (1944).

[9] See KFF, Medicare 101 (published May 28, 2024), available here.

[10] See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395–1395lll.

[11] Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, slip op. 34 (June 28, 2024).

[12] See Am. Health Care Ass’n v. Becerra, No. 24-cv-114 (N.D. Tex) (challenging the rule issued at 89 Fed. Reg. 40876 (May 10, 2024).

[13] Conditions of Participation, 42 C.F.R. §§ 485.500-485.546 (Subpart E), and Payments, §§ 419.90-419.95 (Subpart J), 87 Fed. Reg. 71748, 72292-93 (Nov. 23, 2022),

[14] 21 C.F.R. § 809, 89 Fed. Reg. 37286 (May 6, 2024).

[15] See, e.g., Baptist Mem’l Hosp. – Golden Triangle, Inc. v. Azar, 956 F.3d 689 (5th Cir. 2020) (deferring to CMS’s rule addressing “costs incurred” for calculating Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital payments).

© 2024 Foley & Lardner LLP
For more news on Supreme Court Health Care Decisions, visit the NLR Health Law & Managed Care section.

SCOTUS Freezes States’ Efforts to Resolve Water Conflict

What Happened?

On June 21, 2024, the Supreme Court narrowly held that three states could not enter a consent decree to settle their interstate water dispute without the support of the intervening federal government. The ruling halts the agreement between Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado to settle Texas’s claims and reconfigure water allocation under the Rio Grande Compact going forward. The decision frustrates multi-year efforts by the states to fairly apportion shrinking water supplies and continues uncertainty for water users dependent on flows from the Rio Grande. More generally, the decision highlights the federal government’s power in cases arising under interstate compacts where federal interests are “inextricably intertwined” with the outcome.

Background

In 2013, Texas sued New Mexico and Colorado, claiming that New Mexico’s increased groundwater pumping was diminishing flows from the Rio Grande, unfairly shorting water allocated to the Lonestar state. This claim arose under the Rio Grande Compact, a 1938 allocation agreement between the three states that depend on the Rio Grande’s waters. The Supreme Court allowed the federal government, although not a party to the Compact, to intervene in the dispute in 2014, based on the federal interests in delivering water to Mexico under a 1906 treaty, in operating a Bureau of Reclamation reservoir and irrigation project closely connected to Compact compliance, and in fulfilling potential federal obligations to Indian tribes. The Supreme Court held that the federal government’s interests were “inextricably intertwined” with the case.

Since that decision, the states sought a compromise, recognizing that the 1938 Compact failed to predict severe droughts and dwindling water supplies, new circumstances that require adaptation. Despite this negotiated solution, the federal government refused to sign the agreement. The federal government claimed that the settlement undermines the Compact’s plain language, which cannot be modified without congressional approval, and that the negotiated agreement would impose new obligations on the federal reservoir and irrigation project. Based on its intervenor status, the federal government asked the Supreme Court to reject the deal in the absence of its consent.

Writing for the 5-4 majority, Justice Jackson explained that the Court’s 2018 decision to allow federal claims in the case to proceed “leads inexorably” to the federal government’s approval being necessary before a valid resolution. Justice Gorsuch, writing for the dissent, cautioned that this deference to the intervenor risks federalizing interstate water disputes and limiting the necessary discretion for states to independently manage their waters. Despite previously authoring a unanimous 2018 decision that green-lighted the federal claims, his dissent pointed back to “a century’s worth” of precedent, holding that the Reclamation Act requires the federal government to comply with state control of water resources and not to assert incompatible federal interests. The majority reasoned, by contrast, that the federal government’s interest was particular to the Compact, where compliance depends on federal action.

Analysis

The Court’s acknowledgment of the federal interest in the three states aligning Rio Grande Compact compliance with contemporary water realities is expressly tailored to the unique federal role in this situation. The problem the Court focused on was the proposed resolution’s failure to include the federal government, given its intervenor status and its integral role in managing a reservoir and irrigation project essential to the Compact. This does not authorize federal interference in all interstate water compacts, as the dissent fears, but others may be “inextricably intertwined” with federal interests. Still, the pointed dissent may signal that a significant court minority stands ready to guard state control of water resources when the federal government overreaches. The decision’s immediate impact will perpetuate uncertainty for water users in all three states as the parties are forced back to trial or the negotiating table.

Supreme Court Rules Against Taxpayers in IRC Section 965 Case

On June 20, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a 7-2 opinion in Moore v. United States, 602 U.S. __ (2024), ruling in favor of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

Moore concerned whether US Congress and the IRS could tax US shareholders of controlled foreign corporations (CFCs) on those corporations’ earnings even though the earnings were not distributed to the shareholders. The case specifically focused on the so-called “mandatory repatriation tax” under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 965, a one-time tax on certain undistributed income of a CFC that is payable not by the CFC but by its US shareholders. Some viewed the case as hinging upon whether Congress has the power to tax economic gains that have not been “realized.” (i.e., In the case of a house whose value has appreciated from $500,000 to $600,000, the increased value is “realized” only when the house is sold and the additional $100,000 reaches the taxpayer’s coffers.)

However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, rejected that position on the ground that the mandatory repatriation tax “does tax realized income,” albeit income realized by a CFC. On this basis, they reasoned that the question at issue was whether Congress has the power to attribute realized income of a CFC to (and tax) US shareholders on their respective shares of the undistributed income. This group of justices ultimately decided Congress does have the power.

The majority went out of its way to avoid expressing any opinion as to whether Congress can tax unrealized appreciation, with Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence and Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent asserting that it cannot. Perhaps the Court was signaling a distaste for the Billionaire Minimum Income Tax proposed by US President Joe Biden, which would impose a minimum 20% tax on the total income of the wealthiest American households, including both realized and unrealized amounts, among other Democratic proposals.

Practice Point: We previously noted that certain taxpayers should consider filing protective refund claims contingent on the possibility that Moore would be decided in favor of the taxpayers. In light of the case’s outcome, however, those protective claims are now moot.

© 2024 McDermott Will & Emery
For more news on US Shareholders of Foreign Corporations Taxes, visit the NLR Tax section.

Junk Science or Relevant Evidence: Supreme Court Says Experts May Now Aid in Determining Criminal Intent

In criminal cases, oftentimes the most significant element in dispute is whether the defendant harbored the intent to “knowingly” or “willfully” violate the criminal law at issue. If the defendant denies that he knew what he was doing was illegal, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had the required mens rea — or mental state — to violate the law. The government does this by presenting circumstantial evidence that it argues supports a reasonable inference that the defendant had the required mental state to violate the law. And defense lawyers test that evidence largely on cross examination and by presenting counterevidence.

The more complicated the law — think tax, securities, or federal election conduit contribution laws — the riskier it is that a person can be held criminally liable for what seemed like innocent or at least not illegal conduct. In these cases, experts may be called to testify about how a certain industry or regulatory regime is structured or how it operates, and the parties can argue to the jury whether the facts of the case circumstantially prove the reasonable inference that the defendant knowingly or willfully violated a criminal law related to that industry or regulatory regime. But Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) prohibits an expert from stating an opinion about whether a criminal defendant “did or did not have the mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense. Those matters are for the trier of fact alone.” FRE 704(b) was adopted in response to President Ronald Reagan’s shooter, John Hinkley, being found not guilty by reason of insanity after competing experts offered opinions on the ultimate issue of Hinkley’s sanity. So FRE 704(b) now requires that a jury alone must decide whether the defendant intended to commit a crime. And the answer to this question is often the difference between freedom or years in prison.

In Diaz v. United States, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2024 WL 3056012 (June 20, 2024), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that FRE 704(b) does not preclude expert testimony about the likelihood that the defendant intended to commit a crime based on the defendant’s membership in a particular group. Diaz was charged with “knowingly” transporting drugs across the U.S.-Mexican border. She argued the “blind mule” defense: she did not know there were drugs in the car, therefore she did not knowingly transport them. The government called as an expert a Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent to testify that “in most circumstances, the driver knows they are hired to take drugs from point A to point B.” The Agent said that drug-trafficking organizations would expose themselves to too much risk by using unknowing couriers. The Agent admitted on cross examination that he was not involved in Diaz’s case, and that drug-trafficking organizations sometimes use unknowing couriers. The jury found Diaz guilty and she was sentenced to 84 months in prison.

Diaz argued that the Agent’s expert testimony violated FRE 704(b)’s proscription of expert’s providing opinions about whether a defendant did or did not have the required state of mind to violate the law. The Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit’s opinion that the Agent’s expert testimony did not violate FRE 704(b) because the expert “did not express an opinion about whether Diaz herself knowingly transported [drugs].” Instead, he testified that “most” drug couriers know they are hired to drive drugs from point A to point B. “That opinion does not necessarily describe Diaz’s mental state. After all, Diaz may or may not be like most drug couriers.” The Court acknowledged that it would have violated Rule 704(b) if the Agent had testified that “all” drug couriers know they are transporting drugs, since Diaz would be included in that drug courier group thus making it an opinion about Diaz’s mental state.

The Court said that FRE 704(b) only proscribes expert opinions “in a criminal case that are about a particular person (‘the defendant’) and a particular ultimate issue (whether the defendant has ‘a mental state or condition’ that is ‘an element of the crime charged or of a defense.’).” Because the Agent “did not give an opinion ‘about whether’ Diaz herself ‘did or did not have a mental state or condition that constitutes an element of the crime charged or of a defense,’ his testimony did not violate Rule 704(b).”

In her concurrence, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson inferred that “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” when she wrote that criminal defendants were now free to offer expert testimony “‘on the likelihood’ that the defendant had a particular mental state, ‘based on the defendant’s membership in a particular group.’” For example, “Diaz could have offered expert testimony on the prevalence and characteristics of unknowing drug couriers.” Justice Jackson said that the Diaz opinion will now allow psychiatrists to testify as experts “to tell the jury that when people with schizophrenia as severe as a defendant’s commit acts of violence, it is generally because they do not appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct.” This would not create a “spectacle of dueling experts on the defendant’s mental state,” Justice Jackson wrote, but instead “could help jurors better understand a defendant’s condition and thereby call into question a mens rea that might otherwise be too easily assumed…given the biases, stereotypes, and uneven knowledge that many people have about mental health conditions.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a terse dissent that was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The dissent said the Agent’s probabilistic assessment that “most” couriers know they are transporting drugs violated FRE 704(b) because it was a statement “about whether the defendant” had a “mental state . . . that constitutes an element of the crime charged.” The word “about” is defined as “concerning, regarding, with regard to, with reference to; in the matter of.” And according to the dissent, expert testimony about what most drug couriers know was testimony about the likelihood of what Diaz knew. Justice Gorsuch warned of “warring experts” on the issue of a defendant’s intent, which he says will make the criminal justice system less reliable as lawyers may try and find probabilistic expert opinions on intent rather than doing the hard work of gathering circumstantial evidence and arguing about what that evidence reasonably infers about a defendant’s intent.

© 2024 Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone PLC

Supreme Court Upholds Refusal to Register Trademark Containing the Name of Living Individual – Donald Trump

In a recent unanimous decision in the case Vidal v. Elster (602 U.S. ___ (2024)), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the refusal to register a federal trademark for the phrase “Trump Too Small” based on the fact that the Lanham Act prohibits the registration of the name of a living individual without their consent. The plaintiff in this case, Mr. Elster, filed a federal trademark application in 2018 for the mark “TRUMP TOO SMALL” for use on clothing as shown below, without the prior consent of former President Trump, arguing that the phrase was intended to be a criticism of Donald Trump and his policies and that the refusal was a violation of Mr. Elster’s First Amendment right of free speech. Mr. Elster claimed he wanted to register the mark to convey a political message about the former president.

The Supreme Court reviewed the matter based on the initial refusal to register issued by the United States Patent & Trademark Office, which was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who overturned the refusal holding that barring registration of “Trump Too Small” under a provision of federal trademark law unconstitutionally restricted free speech. The Court’s ruling upholds the “living-individual rule” established under the Lanham Act which requires the consent of the living individual prior to registration. Specifically, “No trademark … shall be refused registration … on account of its nature unless it…[c]onsists of or comprises a name, portrait, or signature identifying a particular living individual except by his written consent….” 15 U.S.C. §1052(c). Proponents of the law, including the International Trademark Association, argue that this provision of trademark law is consistent with the concepts of the right of publicity and privacy, and assists in preventing the unauthorized use of individuals’ names in commercial contexts. In explaining the rationale for the decision, Justice Thomas wrote: “This Court has long recognized that a trademark protects the markholder’s reputation, and the connection is even stronger when the mark contains a person’s name,” and further stated, “This history and tradition is sufficient to conclude that the names clause — a content-based, but viewpoint-neutral, trademark restriction — is compatible with the First Amendment.”

It is worth noting the Court’s decision does not affect the ability of Mr. Elster to offer goods or services under any particular name or brand – in fact, Mr. Elster’s T-shirts bearing the phrase “Trump Too Small” are still available online for $24.99, even though his trademark application was refused. But the ruling does uphold the prohibition of seeking and obtaining federal trademark protection where the mark contains the name of a living individual without their consent. This ruling from the Supreme Court joins a string of other First Amendment challenges to provisions of the Lanham Act, the main statute governing trademarks. The high court in 2017 struck down a section of the law that barred registration of disparaging marks and did the same for a provision prohibiting immoral or scandalous marks in 2019.

The key takeaway from this narrowly tailored decision is that, prior to seeking federal trademark protection for a mark containing the name of a living individual, consent from that individual must be obtained. In the context of protecting a name or brand focused on a living individual, or in the continuation of such use post-merger or other transaction, it is important to ensure that the consent of the living individual is secured in some manner.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in California

U.S. Supreme Court Raises Standard for Labor Board When Seeking 10(j) Injunctions

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision directing district courts to use the traditional four-part test when evaluating whether a preliminary injunction should issue at the request of the National Labor Relations Board pending litigation of a complaint under the National Labor Relations Act. No. 23-367 (June 13, 2024).

The decision settles the split among the federal circuit courts over the standard that should be applied when the Board files a motion for a “10(j)” injunction, named for the section of the Act that authorizes the Board to seek injunctive relief. Circuit courts were split on which test should apply: the traditional four-part test, a more lenient two-part test, or a hybrid of the two.

The Court’s decision raises the bar for the Board, requiring it to meet each prong of the four-part test for a court to grant an injunction. In particular, it will be more difficult for the Board to establish it is “likely to succeed on the merits,” as opposed to the more lenient standard espoused by the Board that “there is reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred.”

The Court vacated and remanded the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit to reevaluate the merits of the injunction request under the four-part test.

10(j) Injunctions

Section 10(j) of the Act allows the Board to seek preliminary injunctions before federal district courts against both employers and unions to stop alleged unfair labor practices during the pendency of the Board’s administrative processing of an unfair labor practice charge. Section 10(j) authorizes a district court “to grant to the Board such temporary relief … as it deems just and proper.”

The requests are rare; the Board has sought only 20 such injunctions since 2023, according to the Board’s website. Nonetheless, the standard a court will use in evaluating the injunction request has been determinative of whether the relief was granted.

Prior Standards

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, as in this case, used a two-part test to assess whether the Board was entitled to an injunction. The two-part test examined whether “there is reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred,” and “whether injunctive relief is ‘just and proper.’” McKinney v. Ozburn-Hessey Logistics, LLC, 875 F.3d 333 (2017). The Supreme Court noted in its latest decision that the Board could establish reasonable cause “by simply showing that its ‘legal theory [was] substantial and not frivolous.’”

Conversely, other courts, such as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh and Eighth Circuits applied the four-part test used for preliminary injunctions in traditional litigation settings set forth in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008). Under the Winter framework, a party seeking injunctive relief must “make a clear showing” that:

  1. He is likely to succeed on the merits;
  2. He is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief;
  3. The balance of equities tips in his favor; and
  4. An injunction is in the public interest.

New Standard for Labor Board

In holding that the four-part test applies to 10(j) injunction requests by the Board, the Court declined to allow Section 10(j) language “to supplant the traditional equitable principles governing injunctions.” Rather, courts should apply standard principles involved in granting injunctive relief, not 10(j)’s “discretion-inviting directive.”

The Court explained that the reasonable-cause standard in the two-part test “goes far beyond simply fine tuning the traditional criteria to the Section 10(j) context—it substantively lowers the bar for securing a preliminary injunction by requiring courts to yield to the Board’s preliminary view of the facts, law, and equities.” It noted there is a substantial difference between the “likely”-to-succeed-on-the-merits standard versus a finding that the charge was “substantial and not frivolous.” Under the “less exacting” standard, courts could evaluate injunction requests giving significant deference to the Board under even a “minimally plausible legal theory” without assessing conflicting facts or questions of law.

Accordingly, the Board must satisfy the traditional standard that requires it to make a clear showing it is likely to succeed on the merits of the claim under a valid theory of liability.

The Court’s decision to standardize 10(j) injunction requests not only raises the Board’s burden of proof, but it creates more consistency across district courts at a time employers increasingly face injunction requests by an activist Board general counsel.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2024

Supreme Court Says When It Comes to Deciding Arbitration Clauses: “I Am the Law”

On May 23, the Supreme Court issued a decision holding that when parties have two conflicting contracts – one that sends disputes to arbitration and one that sends disputes to the courts – a court, not an arbitrator, must decide which contract controls. This decision is important as arbitration provisions continue to rise in popularity and situations like the one the Supreme Court encountered are not uncommon.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Coinbase Inc., v. Suski, et. al., stems from a dispute regarding two separate contracts between Coinbase, a leading cryptocurrency exchange platform, and respondents, users of Coinbase. The first contract concerned the Coinbase user agreement, which included an arbitration agreement with a delegation clause. The delegation clause provided that “[a]ll such matters shall be decided by an arbitrator and not by a court or judge.” The second contract concerned the official rules of a sweepstakes Coinbase offered, where respondents entered for a chance to win Dogecoin. The official rules contained a forum selection clause, which provided: “[t]he California courts (state and federal) shall have sole jurisdiction of any controversies regarding the [sweepstakes] promotion and the laws of California shall govern the promotion.” Thus, the arbitration agreement’s delegation clause, which sent all disputes to arbitration, and the official rules’ forum selection clause, which sent all disputes to California courts, provided for different procedural vehicles for disputes.

Respondents brought suit against Coinbase in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for claims under the Coinbase user agreement and the official rules. Coinbase moved to compel arbitration based on the Coinbase user agreement, and the District Court denied the motion, reasoning that deciding which contract governed was a question for the court. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling. The Supreme Court then granted certiorari, and was tasked to decide, when two such contracts exist, who should decide the arbitrability of a contract-related dispute between the parties – an arbitrator or the court?

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing for the Supreme Court, began the Court’s analysis by noting that the Supreme Court has “previously addressed three layers of arbitration disputes: (1) merits, (2) arbitrability, and (3) who decides arbitrability. This case involves a fourth: What happens if parties have multiple agreements that conflict as to the third-order question of who decides arbitrability?”. Justice Jackson wrote that “[b]asic legal principles establish the answer. Arbitration is a matter of contract and consent, and we have long held that disputes are subject to arbitration if, and only if, the parties actually agreed to arbitrate those disputes. Here… a court needs to decide what the parties have agreed to.” So, if there is a contract at dispute without an arbitration clause, even if there is another contract that requires arbitration, the matter will need to be decided by a court.

Coinbase argued that the user agreement’s delegation provision should have been isolated and severed from the contract and the Ninth Circuit should have considered only arguments specific to that provision. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this argument, reasoning that if a party challenges the validity of the precise agreement to arbitrate at issue, the federal court must consider the challenge before ordering compliance with that arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court also declined to heed Coinbase’s warning that its ruling would “invite chaos by facilitating challenges to delegation clauses.” To this argument, the Supreme Court replied that such chaos will not follow because disputes with one contract that mandates arbitration will go to arbitration absent a successful challenge, and situations with two contracts – one sending the dispute to arbitration and one sending the dispute to the courts – will be handled by a court.

This is an important decision in the dispute resolution space because it makes clear that even though a company may have an arbitration provision in one contract, that arbitration provision will not necessarily carry the day if there are subsequent contracts that provide for different results. As companies continue to increasingly use arbitration provisions in their contracts, they must be careful to be consistent in any future contracts or agreements.

Copyright ©2024 Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP

Supreme Court Weakens NLRB’s Ability to Obtain Injunctions in Labor Cases

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States held that courts must assess requests for an injunction by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) using the traditional four-factor test for preliminary injunctions. The ruling weakens the Board’s ability to obtain quick court orders to maintain the “status quo” in favor of workers in pending labor cases.

Quick Hits

  • The Supreme Court held that federal courts must apply the traditional four-factor equitable test for preliminary injunctions when considering the NLRB’s request for a 10(j) injunction.
  • The ruling found the NRLA does not require courts to defer to the NLRB’s initial findings of a labor violation.
  • The ruling weakens the NLRB’s ability to quickly stop employer actions it alleges are unfair labor practices.

The Supreme Court held that when considering temporary injunction requests under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), courts must apply the traditional equitable four factors as set forth in the high court’s 2008 decision in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. The decision means that courts must consider 10(j) injunction requests under the same equitable principles that they do for other preliminary injunctions without deferring to the NLRB’s determination that an unfair labor practice had occurred.

The unanimous decision comes in a labor dispute in which the trial court issued a preliminary injunction against an employer after applying a two-part test that only asked whether “there is reasonable cause to believe that unfair labor practices have occurred” and whether an injunction is “just and proper.” The injunction was later affirmed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The NLRA prohibits employers from engaging in certain unfair labor practices and allows workers to file a charge with the NLRB. The NLRA provides the NLRB with authority to seek a temporary injunction in federal court and Section 10(j) states that courts may “grant the Board such temporary relief … as it deems just and proper.”

However, the Supreme Court held that the NRLA does not strip courts of their equitable powers, and they must apply the traditional four-factor rule as articulated in Winter when considering a request for a 10(j) injunction. Under that rule, a plaintiff must show “he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”

The Supreme Court rejected the NLRB’s argument that Section 10(j) informs the application of equitable principles and that courts should use a “reasonable cause” standard as applied by the Sixth Circuit in the case. The NLRB had pointed to the context that Congress has given it the authority to adjudicate unfair labor practice charges in the first instance and that courts must give deference to the NLRB’s final decisions.

Justice Clarence Thomas, in the Court’s opinion, stated that the reasonable cause standard “substantively lowers the bar for securing a preliminary injunction by requiring courts to yield to the Board’s preliminary view of the facts, law, and equities.” Justice Thomas stated the fact that the NLRB is the body that will adjudicate unfair labor practice charges on the merits does not mean courts must defer to what amounts to be the NLRB’s initial litigating position. Section 10(j) “does not compel this watered-down approach to equity,” Justice Thomas stated.

In a partial dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson agreed that the NRLA does not strip courts of their equitable powers and that the injunction in the case should be overturned. However, Justice Jackson argued the Court should not ignore the fact that Congress, through the NRLA, granted the NLRB authority over labor disputes.

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court’s ruling raises the bar for the NLRB to seek injunctions by requiring courts to make their own assessment of the equitable factors for issuing preliminary injunctions without deference to the NLRB’s initial findings that an unfair labor practice has occurred. Under the reasonable cause standard, the NLRB merely had to show that its legal theory was not frivolous and that an injunction was necessary to protect the “status quo” pending the NLRB’s proceedings. That standard had allowed the NLRB to quickly put a stop to employer actions that its in-house attorneys believe are labor violations during the pendency of an administrative proceeding on the merits, which could take years to resolve.

© 2024, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For more news on the Supreme Court NLRB Ruling, visit the NLR Labor Employment section.