In a decision with far-ranging implications for federal administrative law, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Loper Bright).1 The Supreme Court’s six-Justice majority held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires courts interpreting agency regulations to determine independently whether the agencies have acted within their statutory authority, even where the statute at issue is ambiguous. In so holding, the Court overruled its 1984 decision in Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which for the last four decades had governed thousands of cases involving federal agency interpretations of ambiguous laws.Continue Reading “Chevron is overruled”: How Loper Bright Will Change the Regulatory Law Landscape

One of the most common and effective defenses raised by privacy class action defendants has been lack of standing. Federal courts have jurisdiction over cases only when the plaintiff has standing to sue. Therefore, courts will dismiss a case when the plaintiff does not meet the requirements for standing. For standing to exist, the plaintiffs’ injury must be “concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling.”1 In other words, the plaintiff must have suffered some actual harm, or face an imminent risk of suffering a concrete injury. Frequently, class action plaintiffs have been unable to establish standing based on alleged injuries from the unauthorized exposure of personal information. The recent U.S. Supreme Court case of Clapper v. Amnesty International USA2 may have strengthened the standing shield for defendants even more.
Continue Reading Clapper v. Amnesty International USA: The U.S. Supreme Court Strengthens Defendants’ Shield Against Privacy Class Actions