- Baylen Linnekin, Keep Food Legal
On March 25, the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency. The case is comprised of three consolidated petitions, one from a group of 21 states, one from the trade group for electrical power plants, and one from the trade group for suppliers of coal to these plants. The Court will answer “Whether the Environmental Protection Agency unreasonably refused to consider costs in determining whether it is appropriate to regulate hazardous air pollutants emitted by electric utilities.”
Members of the Federalist Society’s Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Executive Committee provided an update on recent important activity at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). Recent developments included the results of the CFPB's arbitration study, the suspension of credit card agreement submission to the CFPB, new criticism of the CFPB's mortgage rate tool, and new payday lending rules.
On January 12, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet. The question in this case is whether the Natural Gas Act, which gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction to regulate natural gas sales in interstate commerce for resale (wholesale sales), preempts state-law antitrust claims which challenge industry practices that directly affect the wholesale natural gas market when those claims are asserted by litigants who purchased gas in retail transactions.
To discuss the case, we have Daniel Lyons, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Boston College Law School.
On February 25, 2015 the Supreme Court heard oral argument in North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission. The question in this case is whether the state-action exemption from federal antitrust laws applies to a state dental regulatory board when the majority of board members are dental professionals who are elected by other market participants--and thus potential competitors of anyone seeking entry into the dental industry. The Federal Trade Commission denied immunity to the Board and the Fourth Circuit affirmed that ruling on appeal
By a vote of 6-3, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit. Because a controlling number of the Board’s decisionmakers are active market participants in the occupation the Board regulates, the Court explained, the Board can invoke state-action antitrust immunity only if it was subject to active supervision by the State--and that supervision is lacking here.
Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, which was joined by Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Justice Alito filed a dissenting opinion, which Justices Scalia and Thomas joined.
To discuss the case, we have Prof. Alexander “Sasha” Volokh, who is an Associate Professor of Law at the Emory University School of Law. Professor Volokh received his JD and PhD in economics from Harvard University.