Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s first Supreme Court opinion is a model of stylistic clarity and judicial restraint. Writing for a unanimous Court, his January 8, 2019 opinion in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., No. 17-1272, holds that where parties have agreed in a contract that an arbitrator—rather than a court—should decide whether […]
Kavanaugh’s Debut Opinion Vindicates Trump’s High Court Pick Read More »
According to a year-end press release, the U.S. Department of Justice “obtained more than $2.8 billion in settlements and judgments from civil cases involving fraud and false claims against the government in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2018.” Significantly, $2.1 billion of that $2.8 billion (i.e., about 75%) are attributable to suits filed by whistleblower
DOJ Bounty-Hunter Stats Fuel Whistleblower Filings Read More »
Today’s unanimous Supreme Court opinion in Weyerhauser Co. v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, No. 17-71, empowers federal courts to exercise greater scrutiny over how federal agencies administer the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Under the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”)—the Interior Department unit responsible for administering part of the ESA—must designate the “critical habitat”
Supreme Court Endangered Frog Opinion Gives Federal Wildlife Agency Reason To Croak Read More »
As I reported in an earlier post, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Home Depot v. Jackson, No. 17-1471, a case that involves class-action fairness. On November 15 I filed on behalf of DRI-The Voice of the Defense Bar a merits-stage amicus curiae brief urging the Court to enforce the Class Action Fairness Act’s right to remove
Supreme Court Should Restore Level Playing Field For Consumer Class Actions Read More »
Class actions are big business for the plaintiffs bar. Lawyers have a better chance of pocketing enormous, disproportionate, attorney fee awards if they can litigate, or force settlement of, consumer class actions in plaintiff-friendly state courts. Congress enacted the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) in 2005 to help curb state-court class action abuses. One of
Supreme Court Will Review Unfair Class Action Tactic Read More »
Late last year the U.S. Supreme Court instituted a new electronic filing system. Among other things, anyone with a computer, tablet, or cell phone now can access newly filed petitions and briefs. Simply search the Court’s online docket for a particular case, click on its docket number, scroll through the hyperlinked docket entries, and read,
The REAL Supreme Court Bar Read More »
After almost a decade of jurisdictional discovery, pretrial motions, and appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed dismissal of the “Burn Pit” multidistrict personal injury litigation on the ground that it is barred by the political question doctrine. The litigation encompassed 63 separate complaints, including 44 putative nationwide class actions.
Federal Appeals Court Extinguishes Burn Pit Litigation Against Combat-Zone Contractor Read More »
The D.C. Circuit’s recent opinion in Federal Trade Commission v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 16-53556 (June 19, 2018), illustrates Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s exceptionally clear writing style. Occupying only six pages, Judge Kavanaugh’s lucid opinion concisely summarizes and applies existing D.C. Circuit precedent—primarily his prior opinion in In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,
Recent Opinion Exemplifies SCOTUS Nominee Kavanaugh’s Lucid Legal Writing Read More »
Class actions have become a lucrative business for the plaintiffs’ bar. National corporate defendants sometimes settle even frivolous claims for substantial amounts, especially in plaintiff-friendly state courts. To curb state-court class-action abuses, the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”) expressly authorizes “any defendant” to remove (i.e., transfer) a qualifying class action from state court to federal court,
DRI Files Amicus Brief Urging Supreme Court To Review Class-Action Fairness Issue Read More »
On May 14, the Supreme Court held in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association that the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”) is unconstitutional. The Court ruled that PASPA’s prohibition against States authorizing sports betting violates the “anticommandeering principle,” which precludes Congress from directing States to take, or refrain from taking, particular legislative
Supreme Court’s Sports Betting Decision Reveals Hidden Preemption Requirement Read More »
