John is joined by Christopher G. Michel, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Washington, D.C. office and John Bash, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Austin Office, the two Co-Chairs of the firm’s National Appellate Practice. They discuss several far-reaching decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of its most recent term that significantly affect how the federal government will be able to regulate businesses. First, John Bash explains the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Court over-turned the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to the interpretation of ambiguous statutes adopted by the administrative agencies that implement those statutes. He also explains the decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, in which the Court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations for a plaintiff to challenge federal regulations runs from when the regulation first affects the plaintiff, not from when the regulation is promulgated. They then discuss how Corner Post and Loper Bright together will potentially allow businesses to overturn agency interpretations of statutes that were established decades ago. Chris explains the decision in SEC v. Jarkesy that when an agency brings a case that would typically require a jury at common law, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in a federal court rather than a trial before one of the agency’s administrative law judges. Chris also explains the Court’s decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., which held that a bankruptcy court may not grant a release of claims against non-parties to a bankruptcy unless the alleged victims consent to the release, and how the decision will affect large bankruptcy proceedings going forward. They then discuss Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, in which the Court expressed skepticism about state laws in Texas and Florida that prohibited social media companies from engaging in certain forms of content moderation, but remanded the case for further proceedings. Finally, they discuss Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, in which the Court ruled that “pure omissions” are not actionable under SEC Rule 10b-5 and a Rule 10b-5 claim must always be based on a statement that is either false or misleading on its own or rendered misleading by a material omission.
Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi
