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


To satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, a plaintiff must prove a concrete injury in fact, not merely an injury in law. (Facebook, Inc. v. Patel)

The Consumer Financial Protection Act, which creates a bureau headed by a director who does not answer to the President, violates the Constitution’s separation of powers. (Seila Law v. CFPB)

Although some transportation workers are exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act’s mandate that arbitration agreements must be enforced, that exemption should be narrowly construed. (Wallace v. Grubhub)

Congress did not authorize the SEC to seek disgorgement—a penalty, not an equitable remedy—in securities enforcement actions in federal court. (Liu v. SEC)

The California Supreme Court should review a lower-court decision that sows confusion about when a jurisdictional appeal deadline applies. (State Farm v. Lara)

HHS’s Office of Inspector General should expand the agency’s safe harbor for drug and device makers trying to comply with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute. (In re Proposed Revisions to Anti-Kickback Statute Regulations)


The U.S. Supreme Court declines to review a Berkeley, California ordinance that requires all cell-phone retailers to warn their customers about the supposed dangers of ordinary cell-phone use. (CTIA—The Wireless Ass’n v. City of Berkeley)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit holds that the FDA’s Deeming Rule for modified-risk tobacco products does not violate the First Amendment. (Nicopure Labs, LLC v. FDA)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the denial of class certification in an employment discrimination action in which putative class plaintiffs could not show common issues of fact or law. (Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp.)