Supreme Court held that the TCPA’s federal-debts exemption is a content-based law that violated the First Amendment and severed the exemption from the TCPA.
On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court released its long-awaited decision in PDR v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic. The Court was expected to provide greater clarity about the extent to which litigants can challenge the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) interpretations in private litigation. Instead of deciding that issue, however, the
As we head towards 2020, it’s time once again for the decennial U.S. national Census – one of the broadest data collections that the United States federal government undertakes to learn more about its citizens, recalibrate Congressional districts, allocate public funding, and deliver critical public services. But the government’s ability to conduct the upcoming Census
All eyes are once again on the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) as it turns its attention to the application of the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) to companies accused of complicity in human rights violations committed abroad.
On June 26, 2017, in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer, the U.S. Supreme Court held unconstitutional under the Free Exercise Clause Missouri’s refusal to award a playground resurfacing grant to a church. The Court ruled for the first time that the government’s decision to exclude churches because of their religious identity from
A unanimous Supreme Court held in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar (“Escobar”) that under the civil False Claims Act (FCA), an “implied certification” of compliance could serve as a basis for liability for treble damages and penalties, but only in certain circumstances, rejecting attempts to extend liability under this theory to include any violation of a statute, regulation, or contract term that could theoretically permit the government to deny payment of a claim. The boundaries of this highly anticipated FCA ruling will be the source of additional litigation in the coming months and years.
In January, the United States Supreme Court issued a long-awaited ruling in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. __ (2016), a significant case for companies defending against consumer and other class actions, including those based on the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) – as well as for contractors working on behalf of the federal government.
A Supreme Court decision from February ruled that state regulatory boards run by “a controlling number” of “active market participants” can qualify for an antitrust exemption only if they are “actively supervised” by the state. But the Court left the content of those key terms vague, leaving states to wonder about the degree of antitrust scrutiny their regulatory boards will face. The FTC staff last week issued guidance on how they believe the Supreme Court’s decision should be implemented.
In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court has distinguished the concept of legitimate expectation from an applicant’s right for their application to be considered in accordance with a public authority’s stated policy. The case relates to an application for a visa extension, which was rejected due to a failing by the applicant, Mr Mandalia, to submit
On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) erred by failing to consider costs when deciding whether it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate emissions of mercury and other hazardous air pollutants from power plants. See Michigan v. EPA, U.S., No. 14-46, slip op. (June 29, 2015).
The Supreme Court ruled on February 25 that state professional boards controlled by private entities must be “actively” supervised by state governments to fall within the scope of the state-action antitrust immunity doctrine. North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. FTC, S. Ct. No. 13–534 (Feb. 25, 2015). Companies and private market actors that
In a judgment handed down this morning, the Supreme Court adopted a pragmatic and flexible approach to the scope of HMRC’s powers of interference with property on certain grounds. Reversing the Court of Appeal’s ruling, the Supreme Court found that, while the express statutory power to detain goods on which HMRC originally relied did not
Today the Supreme Court, in McCutcheon v. FEC, issued a ruling striking down the aggregate limits on individual campaign contributions under the Federal Election Campaign Act. By a 5-4 decision, the court found the restrictions to be a violation of First Amendment rights. Prior to today’s decision, individuals could contribute up to US$48,600.00 to all
The Supreme Court has ruled that the absolute exemption contained in s.32(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“FOIA“) continues to apply to information obtained or created by a person conducting an inquiry even after the termination of that inquiry. The decision was not without dissent, however, with the minority of the Court considering
The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal brought by HS2 Action Alliance Limited (and others) against the Government’s proposals in relation to HS2.
A Scottish council has been required to provide data indicating whether it pays traditionally “male” jobs more than traditionally “female” roles, after the Supreme Court rejected its argument that Data Protection legislation prevented disclosure. The case provides clarification on what is meant by the requirement that disclosure, and other forms of data processing, be “necessary”
In a unanimous and favorable decision for the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Supreme Court found that the state action immunity doctrine does not shield Phoebe Putney Health System’s acquisition of Palmyra Park Hospital from antitrust scrutiny, sending the parties back to FTC administrative litigation to battle over the legality of the hospital merger. The
The Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion today reversing a D.C. Circuit decision that held that the 180-day statutory deadline for providers to appeal reimbursement determinations to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB) is subject to equitable tolling. In this case, the hospitals sought to challenge their disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments ten years after
Amid the historic results of the past Supreme Court term, industry watchers should not overlook the Court’s decision to deny certiorari and not hear the broadcasters’ appeal of the FCC’s 2008 cross-ownership decision. Last year the Third Circuit upheld the FCC’s rules, which preserved most limits on how many stations one broadcaster could control in
Despite losses at the district and appellate levels, the Federal Trade Commission’s fight to enjoin the merger of two hospitals in Georgia is not over. The Supreme Court announced on June 25, 2012 that it would hear an appeal by the FTC to consider whether an alleged merger to monopoly of two hospitals, Phoebe Putney
In the most closely-watched decision of its 2012 term, Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion for a majority of a divided Supreme Court today upholding the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The vote was 5-to-4. While the Court also upheld the Medicaid expansion, it narrowly read the federal government’s power to terminate
Co-Authored by Agnes P. Dover, Partner and Director of Hogan Lovells’ Government Contracts Practice In the only government contract case it considered this term, Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Ramah Navajo Chapter et al., the Supreme Court of the United States addressed the question of whether a federal agency is excused from paying
On Tuesday afternoon, three of Hogan Lovells’ Appellate practice partners will provide an analysis of some of the key decisions that will impact businesses as the Supreme Court concludes its current term. Neal Katyal, former Acting Solicitor General of the United States and Appellate practice Co-Director, Cate Stetson, Co-Director of our Appellate practice; and Chris
On March 19, the Supreme Court announced, without comment, that it would not hear an appeal from two religious student groups challenging San Diego State University’s decision not to grant official recognition to the groups. In Alpha Delta Chi-Delta Chapter v. Reed, the student groups had argued that the university violated their First Amendment rights