Tag Archives: statutory interpretation

When Chevron Meets the Hobbs Act: PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. (Part III)

by Bernard Bell — Thursday, Nov. 29, 2018

The worse day in a man’s life is when he sits down and begins thinking about how he can get something for nothing.  — Thomas Jefferson This concluding post of my three-part series regarding PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., Dkt. No. 17-1705 (U.S. Sup. Ct.), addresses the merits question the case […]

When Chevron Meets the Hobbs Act: PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. (Part II)

by Bernard Bell — Tuesday, Nov. 27, 2018

This is the second post in a three-part series regarding PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., Dkt No. 17-1705 (certiorari granted November 13, 2018).  This post addresses the question the case nominally presents — does the Hobbs Act require district courts to apply FCC regulations, even when the court believes they conflict […]

When Chevron Meets the Hobbs Act: PDR Network v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. (Part I)

by Bernard Bell — Monday, Nov. 26, 2018

  “When Chevron meets Hobbs, consideration of the merits must yield to jurisdictional constraints.” Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc. v. PDR Network, 883 F.3d 459 (4th Cir. 2018) The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in PDR Network, LLC v. Carlton & Harris Chiropractic, Inc., Dkt No. 17-1705, (Order List Nov. 13, 2018).  The Court framed […]

Guido v. Mt. Lemmon School District: The Supreme Court Decides

by Bernard Bell — Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2018

Yesterday, the Court decided Mount Lemon First District v. Guido, Dkt No. 17-587, 2018 WL 5794639 (Nov. 6, 2018), its first merits opinion of the October 2018 term.  The question presented was whether the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA) applied to political subdivisions regardless of whether they employed 20 or more employees.  […]

On the Supreme Court Docket — Guido v. Mt. Lemmon School District: Numerosity Requirements in the ADEA and Other Employment Discrimination Statutes (Part II)

by Bernard Bell — Tuesday, May 15, 2018

This is the second of two posts regarding Guido v. Mt. Lemmon School District,  Dkt. No. 17-587, currently on the Supreme Court docket for the October 2018 Term.  The case involves the applicability of Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967’s (ADEA) numerosity requirement, 29 U.S.C.A. § 630(b), to public employers. In my prior post […]

On the Supreme Court Docket — Guido v. Mt. Lemmon School District: Numerosity Requirements in the ADEA and Other Employment Discrimination Statutes (Part I)

by Bernard Bell — Thursday, May 10, 2018

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in Guido v. Mt. Lemmon School District.  — U.S. — , 138 S.Ct. 1165 (February 26, 2018).  Presumably, it did so to resolve a Circuit split regarding the application of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967’s (ADEA) numerosity requirement, 29 U.S.C.A. § 630(b), to public employers.  In […]

What 2016 Gorsuch Opinions Could Mean for 2017 Re-Argument in Sessions v. Dimaya

by Michael Kagan — Monday, July 3, 2017@MichaelGKagan

At the end of its term, a shorthanded and evidently evenly divided Supreme Court scheduled two immigration cases for re-argument next term when nine justices can hear the cases. Of the two, Sessions v. Dimaya stands out because the ninth and newest justice has very recently issued opinions that seem to bear directly on key […]

Repealing Economic Substance Codification and Replacing It With What?

by Daniel Hemel — Monday, Feb. 20, 2017

The Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act appears to be stalling. If and when it picks up again, the fate of section 7701(o) of the Internal Revenue Code will be far from the most consequential issue at stake. But section 7701(o), the provision added by the ACA that codifies the tax law economic […]

If There’s No Such Thing as Medical Marijuana, How Do We Have Medical Marijuana?

by Sam Halabi — Friday, Aug. 12, 2016

This week, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) responded to petitions requesting a redesignation of marijuana for the benefit of scientific research. The DEA refused, citing, somewhat tautologically, the fact that there are no scientifically valid and well-controlled clinical trials demonstrating benefits for certain modalities of marijuana for specific medical indications.  DEA affirmed marijuana’s continued status […]

What King v. Burwell Means for Statutory Interpretation

by Chris Walker — Thursday, June 25, 2015@chris_j_walker

This morning I blogged about what the 6-3 decision in King v. Burwell means for administrative law (post here). Part of my conclusion there is that the Court’s decision in King chips away at the bright-line rule-based approach to Chevron deference—an approach Justice Scalia has championed—by reinvigorating the major questions doctrine. King, however, constitutes a major […]