To read more about the items below, click the link above for a PDF of the newsletter.


  • Federal regulation of alcohol labeling and advertising should respect First Amendment rights. (In re Modernization of TTB Labeling and Advertising Regulations)
  • The Department of Labor’s proposed rule on when a business can face “joint employer” liability imposes appropriate limits under the Fair Labor Standards Act. (In re Joint Employer Status under FLSA)
  • Nonresident defendants are not subject to the personal jurisdiction of a state court unless their forum activities are causally connected to the plaintiff’ claims. (Hammons v. Ethicon, Inc.)
  • California courts need a reminder that the Federal Arbitration Act prohibits States from discriminating against arbitration agreements. (Winston & Strawn LLP v. Ramos)
  • The FTC improperly assumes that agreements among competitors about internet-search advertising violate the antitrust laws. (1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. FTC)
  • Federal contractors sued in state court should be able to remove the action to federal court whenever they can articulate a plausible federal defense. (Latiolais v. Huntington Ingalls, Inc.)
  • Certification of nationwide class actions is improper when the applicable laws of the 50 States vary significantly from one another. (Stromberg v. Qualcomm Inc.)


  • The U.S. Supreme Court declines to overrule the Auer deference doctrine, under which federal courts must defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations. (Kisor v. Wilkie)
  • The U.S. Supreme Court declines to review a lower-court’s refusal to order compensation under the Takings Clause for owners whose property at a Dallas airport was rendered worthless by federal legislation. (Love Terminal Partners, L.P. v. US)
  • The U.S. Supreme Court holds that property owners may file Takings Clause claims against local governments in federal court without first seeking compensation in a state-court proceeding. (Knick v. Township of Scott)
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declines to reconsider its holding that the Federal Trade Commission Act authorizes the FTC to financial penalties in a federal-court suit—by calling its request “equitable monetary relief.” (FTC v. AMG Capital Management, LLC)
  • The U.S. Supreme Court agrees to consider whether state courts may impose their own environmental clean-up plans on sites already subject to remediation under the federal “Superfund” law. (Atlantic Richfield v. Christian)
  • The U.S. Supreme Court holds that employment issues for those working on the Outer Continental Shelf are governed by federal law, not the law of the adjacent State. (Newton v. Parker Drilling Management Services, Inc.)
  • The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rules that human rights groups may not file claims under the Alien Tort Statute when the suit is likely to cause conflict with a foreign country’s government. (Doe I. v. Exxon Mobil Corp.)