United States: 2018-19 Supreme Court Update

Much of the attention on the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2018-19 term has concerned its composition or its handling of cases involving some of the signature initiatives of President Donald Trump's administration. Less noticed is the Court's extensive docket of potentially significant disputes relevant to businesses, including those involving administrative law, the First Amendment, antitrust, securities, arbitration and class actions.

Administrative Law

The doctrine of so-called Auer deference may, in the words of Justice Clarence Thomas, finally draw its last gasp. On December 10, 2018, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Kisor v. Wilkie to determine whether courts should continue to defer to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations when they are ambiguous. For over 70 years, Supreme Court precedent has directed courts to do just so, adding an important weapon to federal agencies' legal arsenal. But several members of the current court — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Thomas — have over the years called the doctrine into question. In Kisor, which involves an interpretation by the Department of Veterans Affairs of its own regulation, the Supreme Court will finally resolve the uncertainty regarding the doctrine's viability. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has argued in an amicus brief that Auer deference heightens regulatory uncertainty and harms business interests.

Trademarks and First Amendment

In its 2017 decision in Matal v. Tam, the Court held that a provision of the Lanham Act prohibiting trademarks that "disparage" persons, institutions or beliefs violated the First Amendment. Now, the Court will consider whether a similar provision within the Lanham Act — one prohibiting "scandalous" or "immoral" trademarks — also violates the First Amendment. The case is Iancu v. Brunetti, where the respondent is attempting to register the mark "FUCT" in connection with his clothing line.

The respondent argues that the "scandalous" clause at issue here should be treated no differently than the "disparagement" clause in Tam — both are unconstitutional restrictions on speech. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found in his favor, but the government is defending the law by arguing that the decision in Tam does not apply because no rationale for striking down the "disparagement" clause garnered the assent of a majority of the court. And, in any event, the court in Tam said that the "disparagement" clause discriminates based on viewpoint, whereas — according to the government — the "scandalous" clause at issue here does not. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on January 4, 2019.

The decision will either narrow or expand Tam's holding and perhaps establish a clear rule regarding how the First Amendment interacts with trademark law.

Antitrust Standing

In 1977, the Supreme Court held in Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois that only direct purchasers of a product can seek remedies for federal antitrust violations. This term, the Court will assess this doctrine's applicability in a digital marketplace in Apple v. Pepper — a dispute involving Apple and iPhone users who make purchases from Apple's App Store.

iPhone users allege that Apple has created a "monopoly app store" that overcharges for iPhone apps. They argue that they have standing as direct purchasers because they buy the apps directly from Apple's App Store, and Apple itself receives the payment. Apple, however, argues that iPhone users are indirect purchasers because app prices are set by third-party app developers, thus breaking the causal chain between Apple's actions and consumers' damages. The district court sided with Apple, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed.

At oral arguments presented to the Supreme Court, several justices questioned Apple's characterization of app developers as middlemen between itself and iPhone users, with Justice Elena Kagan saying, "I mean, I pick up my iPhone. I go to Apple's App Store. I pay Apple directly with the credit card information that I've supplied to Apple. From my perspective, I've just engaged in a one-step transaction with Apple."

The justices questioned counsel for iPhone users about coherence of their theories of damages or monopolization. And Justice Gorsuch asked why the users did not seek a more comprehensive revision of Illinois Brick — a doctrine that has been expressly rejected by many states' antitrust laws. Indeed, a bipartisan group of 31 states filed an amicus brief arguing that Illinois Brick was wrongly decided or no longer relevant in the modern economy.

The justices questioned counsel for iPhone users about coherence of their theories of damages or monopolization.

Should the Supreme Court side with iPhone users, online distribution platforms may face increasing antitrust exposure. No matter what happens, the decision will shed light on Illinois Brick's applicability in today's markets.

Federal Securities Laws

Federal Merger Litigation

Shareholder litigation concerning the adequacy of disclosures made in connection with a merger or acquisition has increasingly been brought through an implied cause of action under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act. On January 4, 2019, the Court granted certiorari in Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian to consider whether a defendant violates Section 14(e) only if shareholders can prove that the defendant intended to make a material misstatement or omission — or (as the Ninth Circuit has held) if the defendant was merely negligent. As amicus in support of certiorari, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association argued that a lower standard of liability would invite litigation against the financial institutions that advise on a merger or acquisition. Another amicus, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, asked the court to go further and decide that Section 14(e) does not provide for a private cause of action in the first place — a question the court has never addressed.

Material Misstatement Liability

In 2011, the Court held that only the "maker" of a fraudulent statement is primarily liable under SEC Rule 10b-5(b). Persons who prepare the statement and do not retain the ultimate authority on whether and how to communicate it are, at best, secondarily liable. This term, in Lorenzo v. SEC, the Supreme Court will consider whether the preparer, even if not primarily liable for a Rule 10b-5(b) violation, can be held primarily liable for the same conduct under the fraudulent scheme provisions of the securities laws. The Court's opinion will be of interest to the business community for its guidance on fraudulent scheme liability in general and its overlap with false statement liability. (See " Securities Class Action Filings Show No Signs of Abating.")

Arbitration

The Court took an opportunity early in the term to resolve two issues concerning the scope of arbitrable disputes under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Although both cases were decided unanimously, one decision generally favored arbitration and the other did not.

Delegation Provisions

Courts generally decide gateway questions about arbitrability, such as whether an arbitration agreement covers a particular controversy. Parties can agree, however, to have arbitrators decide these questions by including a delegation provision. In one of the term's first decisions, the Supreme Court unanimously held in Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc. that when parties contractually delegate the arbitrability question to arbitrators, courts must respect that decision, even when one party contends that the argument for arbitration is "wholly groundless." Issuing his first opinion for the Court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote that the "wholly groundless" exception is inconsistent with the FAA's text and "confuses the question of who decides arbitrability with the separate question of who prevails on arbitrability." The decision reinforces the long-standing principle that arbitration is a matter of contract and reassures contractual parties that courts will be hesitant to override provisions of arbitration agreements.

Class Arbitration

Does an arbitration agreement authorize class arbitration if it includes commonly used, broad language such as "arbitration shall be in lieu of any and all lawsuits or other civil legal proceedings"? In Lamps Plus, Inc. v. Varela, the Supreme Court will consider the standard a court should apply in determining whether an arbitration agreement authorizes class arbitration and whether the FAA constrains state law interpretation of the issue.

The Supreme Court's opinion may give the business community greater clarity about the contractual language it should use to address class arbitration. But, as so often happens before the Court, procedural hurdles may interfere. At oral argument on October 29, 2018, some of the justices indicated that jurisdictional questions may lead the Court to avoid reaching the class arbitration issue. (See " Significant Rulings Expected for Ongoing Mass Tort, Consumer Class Action Issues.")

Exemption for Independent Contractors

The FAA does not apply to "contracts of employment" for any "class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce." On January 15, 2019, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira that this exemption (found in Section 1 of the FAA) applies to independent contractors working in transportation industries.

Dominic Oliveira, a truck driver who signed an agreement designating him as an independent contractor, argued that he could not be compelled to arbitrate because the "contracts of employment" exemption encompasses independent contractors. New Prime, an interstate trucking company, argued for a narrow reading of "contracts of employment" that included only employer-employee relationships. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit sided with Oliveira, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

In his opinion for the Court, Justice Gorsuch endorsed the broad reading of the exemption, holding that "contracts of employment" refers to any agreement to perform work. He reasoned that the statute, construed against the background of its enactment in 1925, evinced no intent to distinguish between independent contractors and traditional employees in the exemption.

Justice Gorsuch endorsed the broad reading of the exemption, holding that "contracts of employment" refers to any agreement to perform work.

Some of the amici in support of Oliveira had asserted that employers in transportation industries might deliberately classify their workers as independent contractors to avoid the exemption and compel arbitration when disputes arise. But the Court's decision means that the exemption's applicability will not depend on whether a relationship is structured as an "employer-employee" relationship or an "independent contractor" relationship.

Class Actions

Cy Pres Settlements

In Frank v. Gaos, the Court will address the permissibility of "cy pres only" settlements under the Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states a court can approve a class action settlement only if it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate." Does a settlement that distributes none of the proceeds to class members, but rather allocates them among organizations related to the subject matter of the case, meet this standard? Proponents argue that such settlements can be more efficient than minimal monetary awards to class members, and that nothing in the text or history of Rule 23 bars them. The Ninth Circuit agreed, but certain class members contend before the Court that awards to class members were feasible and that class counsel should not have incentives to divert settlement funds toward causes of their choosing. The case was argued on October 31, 2018, with the justices expressing skepticism of cy pres settlements and also questioning whether the plaintiffs have standing to begin with. Should the Court reach the merits, it could affect the distribution — and perhaps the likelihood and amount — of certain class action settlements.

Equitable Exceptions

On November 27, 2018, the Court heard arguments for another class action case — Nutraceutical Corp. v. Lambert — concerning the timeliness of a plaintiff's petition for permission to appeal an order decertifying the class. Rule 23(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure establishes a 14-day deadline for such petitions, and the plaintiff missed that deadline by several months. Yet the Ninth Circuit applied an equitable exception and accepted the petition because the plaintiff's counsel told the trial court (before the deadline) that he intended to seek reconsideration.

The case may boil down to a distinction between jurisdictional rules and nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules. Whereas the former require strict compliance, the latter are generally subject to equitable exceptions — unless expressly made mandatory. The Court's decision will affect how diligently the parties must seek review of class certification decisions.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom (UK) LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions