Last Month at the Supreme Court | November 2024

Welcome back to Season 2 of Last Month at the Supreme Court! Dykema’s Appellate and Critical Motions team has curated several cases to kick off the 2024 Term. In this edition, the Court explores the EPA’s authority to enforce the Clean Water Act in a post-Chevron deference world; the impact of amending a complaint on federal jurisdiction and forum shopping; and the constitutionality of qui tam actions allowed under the False Claims Act. Additionally, be sure to review Dykema’s list of notable cases that the Court has agreed to hear so you can stay current on other critical issues the Court plans to tackle this Term.

For more information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Susan Feibus, Mark Magyar, Kyle Asher, Christopher Sakauye, Monika Harris, or Ryan VanOver.

Federal Court Tees Up False Claims Act Constitutionality Dispute

The Supreme Court recently decided U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In dissent, Justice Thomas questioned the constitutionality of the qui tam regime under the False Claims Act (FCA), by which a private “relator” represents the interests of the United States in litigation. Concurring with the majority, Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett nevertheless agreed with Justice Thomas that the constitutional issue he raised should be considered in “an appropriate case.” Dykema covered the decision, including the dissent, in a previous article. Read the full synopsis here.  

Navigating the New Landscape of Clean Water Regulations: Supreme Court Weighs in on EPA’s Authority Amidst Shifting Deference Standards

In what may be its first opportunity to test the waters of federal agency influence after the fall of Chevron deference, on October 16, 2024, the Supreme Court heard arguments in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency. This case comes to the Court after a divided Ninth Circuit panel rejected a challenge to the EPA’s authority to enforce the Clean Water Act (“CWA” or the “Act”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., through “general narrative prohibitions” spelled out in permits issued under the EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permitting program. Read the full synopsis here.  

Supreme Court Grapples With Footnotes and Forum-Shopping

In Royal Canin v. Wullschleger, the Supreme Court will determine whether a plaintiff, whose state court action has been removed by the defendant to federal court, may seek to have the case remanded to state court by amending the complaint to remove all references to federal law. Read the full synopsis here.

Grant Alerts

Notable Business Cases the Court Granted Last Month. Read the full list here.