On February 20, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review a decision of the California Court of Appeal that held that insurance firms subject to rate regulation have no constitutional right to earn a “fair rate of return.” The decision was a setback for WLF, which filed a brief in the case arguing that the appeals court’s decision conflicts with more than 70 years of settled Supreme Court precedent, which has consistently held that the U.S. Constitution guarantees a regulated business the opportunity to earn enough revenue not only for operating expenses, but also to fairly compensate investors for the risks they have assumed. WLF also contends that the Court of Appeal’s holding has ramifications for every company that does business subject to rate regulation—insurers, utilities, telecommunications providers, and others. WLF’s amicus curiae brief was prepared by attorneys at the firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.