U.S. Supreme Court

Subscribe to U.S. Supreme Court via RSS
image

On June 27, 2024, the United States Supreme Court (the “Court”) affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy and held that a defendant facing civil penalties in a securities fraud claim brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) has a right to a jury trial in a federal court.1 Specifically, the Court held that the SEC’s attempt to compel respondents to defend themselves before the agency, namely in an administrative proceeding before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) employed by the SEC, violates respondents’ Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial in cases where the SEC pursues civil penalties. Accordingly, this decision will likely limit the number of future SEC actions adjudicated by an ALJ in an administrative forum due to the restriction on the available remedies.Continue Reading SEC v. Jarkesy: A Divided Supreme Court Holds That the SEC Cannot Seek Civil Penalties through an Administrative Proceeding

On April 29, 2024, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC” or the “Commission”) published its “Enforcement Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace” (the “Guidance”), which outlines the legal standards for harassment and employer liability under the equal employment opportunity laws enforced by the Commission.  (See here.)  The Guidance replaces the five prior harassment guidance documents from the EEOC, issued between 1987 and 1999, and serves as a single resource for workplace harassment law.  The Guidance addresses several timely topics, including, but not limited to, protections for LGBTQ+ workers, harassment in the remote workplace, and the interplay between religious freedom and unlawful harassment.  The Guidance also includes over 70 illustrative examples of permissible and impermissible conduct.   Continue Reading EEOC Updates Anti-Harassment Guidance for First Time in 25 Years

On June 1, 2023 the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded two Seventh Circuit decisions involving the False Claims Act (FCA), holding in a unanimous opinion that the FCA’s scienter element turns on a defendant’s subjective belief and intent, not by an after-the-fact analysis of whether the defendant’s actions were “objectively reasonable.”

The two cases at issue, United States et al. ex rel. Schutte et al. v. SuperValu Inc. et al. and United States et al. ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway Inc., alleged that respondents SuperValu and Safeway separately defrauded Medicaid and Medicare by offering discount programs to their customers while knowingly submitting claims for the higher retail prices exceeding the “usual and customary prices” customers paid. Ruling in favor of SuperValu and Safeway, the Seventh Circuit applied an “objectively reasonable” scienter standard, determining that SuperValu and Safeway would be liable for submitting false claims only if their respective interpretation of the FCA’s “usual and customary” language was not “objectively reasonable.”Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Usage of Subjective Standard for FCA Scienter Element

BREAKING NEWS: On May 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the EPA in a wetlands regulation challenge, limiting federal power over wetlands and boosting personal property rights over clean water.

The case (Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 21-454) stemmed from Chantell and Mike Sackett’s 2004 purchase of an undeveloped plot of…

By: Matthew A. Rossi and Eleanor Hudson Callaway

On Friday, April 14, 2023, the Supreme Court cleared the way for respondents in Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) administrative proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of those proceedings in federal district court while the administrative process is ongoing.  Typically, as required by…