Law Center Search Results

In 2022, the NAM appealled the district court’s grant of judgment to the SEC on the NAM’s claims challenging the SEC’s rescission of the 2020 proxy firm rule. We argue in this appeal that the district court failed to engage on the substance of the NAM’s claims that the SEC failed to justify its rescission and to give the public a meaningful opportunity to comment in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

In July 2022, the SEC issued a final rule to rescind the 2020 critical reforms subjecting proxy advisory firms—unregulated third parties with outsized influence on shareholder votes and manufacturers’ corporate governance policies—to reasonable SEC oversight just like every other participant in the securities markets. The NAM sued the SEC in the Western District of Texas arguing that the 2022 recission is arbitrary and capricious as well as procedurally defective. We have asked the court to vacate the 2022 recission in its entirety and declare that the recession is unlawful and void.

Unfortunately, on December 4, 2022, the court denied the NAM’s motion for summary judgment and granted the SEC's cross-motion.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in the Texas Supreme Court concerning the interpretation and enforceability of indemnity provisions in contracts between sophisticated commercial entities. In this case, the owner and operator of an oil refinery contracted with a large industrial contractor to perform specialty work. In the contract, the contractor agreed to indemnify the owner for losses or other liabilities due to bodily injury claims in connection with the contractor’s work. The owner was later sued after some of the contractor’s employees were injured. Although the owner reached a settlement with the injured workers, the contractor refused to participate in that settlement or honor its indemnity obligations. The owner filed suit, and the contractor moved for summary judgment, arguing that the owner had forfeited its contractual rights by settling with the workers. That motion was denied, and the instant interlocutory appeal followed.

Manufacturers consistently enter into contracts, like the general services agreement at issue in this case, with indemnification provisions governed under Texas law. The ability of sophisticated private parties to negotiate the allocation of risks and potential liability through contract is crucial to manufacturers’ business interests. The NAM’s brief argues that fundamental principles of contract law require Texas courts to honor the contractor’s express agreement to indemnify. The contractor’s position here would disrupt countless contracts between commercial parties and severely disincentive personal injury settlements, unnecessarily wasting judicial resources. Happily, on December 10, 2021, the court agreed to hear the case.

The MCLA filed an amicus brief in support of Fluor Corporation's petition to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking review of a trial court order requiring Fluor to produce privileged communications related to an internal investigation because they had been disclosed to the government pursuant to a regulatory requirement. Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation Mandatory Disclosure Rule (MDR), federal contractors must timely disclose instances in which the contractor has credible evidence that an employee has violated certain criminal laws or the civil False Claims Act. While investigating an employee's actions, Fluor found “credible evidence” of misconduct, and reported the conclusions of its investigation to the Defense Department pursuant to the MDR. That employee then sued Fluor, asserting defamation and other claims, and sought Fluor’s internal investigative files in discovery. Fluor objected on the basis that the files were protected by the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine. The district court held that Fluor’s governmental disclosure had waived privilege because it made a set of statements as part of its MDR disclosures that were “legal conclusions, . . . which only a lawyer is qualified to make,” and because Fluor had inadvertently characterized these disclosures as “voluntary” in filings before the court. Fluor sought emergency relief in the form of a writ of mandamus, and on March 6, 2020, the MCLA filed a coalition amicus brief arguing that the trial court's order poses significant adverse consequences for manufacturers in numerous regulated industries, and may ultimately chill participation in voluntary and mandatory disclosure and compliance programs. On March 13, 2020, while denying our motion to participate as amicus, the Court granted mandamus review indicating that the district court’s decision was “clearly and indisputably incorrect.”

The NAM joined with partner organizations to bring a prophylactic challenge to a final rule regulating PIP (3:1)—a persistent, bio-accumulative chemical that is ubiquitous in manufacturing operations and supply chains—under the Toxic Substances Control Act. The rule called for the prohibition of PIP (3:1) on an aggressive timeline that would have severely impacted supply chains for a wide variety of electronics, from cell phones, to robotics used to manufacture semiconductors, to equipment used to move COVID-19 vaccines and keep them at the appropriate temperature. After the NAM coalition files it petition in the D.C. Circuit raising these compliance issues, the EPA agreed to seek additional public input on the rule for a period of 60 days, with a special focus on alternative exposure reduction measures for certain products. The agency also issued a issued a rare “No Action Assurance” to notify regulated industry that it would not enforce the rule for 180 days pending next steps in the rulemaking process to provide longer-term relief. The case is currently in abeyance pending the new rulemaking.

In 2017, the MCLA sued the EPA to challenge the agency’s rule governing risk management plans for chemical facilities and oil refineries. The rule imposed costly and burdensome requirements on facilities that handle hazardous substances without improving worker or community safety. The court stayed the litigation after the EPA delayed enforcement of the rule and proposed a substantive replacement. The EPA then issued a final rule in 2019. The litigation remains stayed pending further orders from the court.

A group of individual plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against defendant Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., alleging that Saint-Gobain released perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) into groundwater that seeped into the plaintiffs' nearby land. The plaintiffs argued that they are entitled to financial damages to pay for ongoing medical health monitoring because of their alleged exposure to PFOA, and to compensate them for lower property values allegedly caused by the contamination. Saint-Gobain moved to dismiss the complaint because New York law does not recognize claims for medical monitoring absent any evidence of physical harm and does not recognize diminution of property value due to alleged groundwater contamination. The district court denied the motion to dismiss but certified immediate appellate review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The NAM filed an amicus brief on behalf of Saint-Gobain to ensure that the law limiting medical monitoring and diminution-of-value claims remains appropriately balanced and favorable to manufacturers. Without appropriate limitations on these types of claims, manufacturers would be subject to massive and unwarranted increases in liability exposure.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in support of rehearing en banc by the 9th Circuit in one of over two dozen public nuisance cases seeking to drive national energy policy on climate change. This case is part of a coordinated, national litigation campaign filed in carefully chosen states and federal circuits by agenda-driven lawyers and activists. The issue presented is whether putative state-law tort claims alleging harm from global climate change are removable because they arise under federal law. In April 2022, the 9th Circuit rejected federal-question jurisdiction and all other bases for subject matter jurisdiction and remand the case to state court. In support of rehearing, the NAM filed an amicus brief arguing that the subject matter and remedies sought through this litigation are inherently national, as well as legislative and regulatory in nature, and that such complex policy matters should not be driven by individual state judges in individual state courtrooms applying (or misapplying) various state liability laws.

Unfortunately, on June 27, 2022, the 9th Circuit denied the petition for rehearing.

In 2015, the NAM filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit supporting a federal judge’s decision not to impose excessive penalties on ExxonMobil for various permit violations. On remand to the district court, the groups reduced their requested penalties from $642 million to about $40 million, and the district judge awarded them about $20 million, prompting Exxon’s appeal back to the Fifth Circuit. In 2018 and 2021, the NAM filed additional amicus briefs arguing that the Constitution and Clean Air Act limit citizen suits under the Clean Air Act and asking the Fifth Circuit to enforce the constitutional line that limits federal courts to deciding discrete cases and controversies and prevents them from acting as regulators or policymakers.

Unfortunately, on August 30, 2022, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's latest decision imposing a $14.25M penalty on defendant-appellants (for 3,651 purported violations). On, October 20, 2022, the NAM filed an amicus brief in support of Exxon’s petition for the 5th Circuit to rehear en banc its appeal challenging the district court’s penalty award.

Happily, on February 17, 2023, the 5th Circuit granted the petition for rehearing en banc and vacated the panel decision. On March 27, 2023, the NAM filed an amicus brief asking the full 5th Circuit to reverse the panel’s decision to enforce the limits of federal courts’ jurisdiction. This case is important to manufacturers because courts should exercise discretion in determining civil penalties to prevent creating perverse incentives for plaintiffs.

The NAM sued the EPA in 2015 to challenge the EPA’s declaration that 36 states’ state implementation plans (SIPs) under the Clean Air Act are invalid because they allow air emissions in excess of permit limits during startup, shutdown or equipment malfunctions. That flexibility is important to manufacturers that might temporarily exceed permit limits for reasons beyond their control. The litigation has been held in abeyance since April 2017 while the EPA considers whether to revise or rescind the rule.

On June 25, 2018, the NAM moved to intervene in a case involving permitting requirements for manufacturers under the Clean Air Act. Environmental groups sued to challenge a guidance document from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that streamlines Clean Air Act permits under the New Source Review program for facilities that expand or modify their operations. If the plaintiffs' claims are successful, facility modifications could be significantly delayed and rendered more expensive. The NAM's motion asks the court to allow the NAM to become a co-defendant in the case with EPA to bring the voice of manufacturers in defense of the EPA's sensible policy.

On July 13, 2018, the court held the case in abeyance pending the completion of an EPA rulemaking to implement the terms of the guidance document. The litigation is expected to reactivate when the final rule issues.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in a case involving the state of Washington’s authority to prohibit certain exports from Washington’s coastal ports. Washington state denied several environmental permits necessary to construct a new coal export terminal near Longview, Washington. The denials were improperly based on concerns about the use of coal for electricity generation in foreign countries. The state’s actions have dangerous implications for the power of individual states to interfere with interstate and international trade. A federal district court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims. On appeal to the 9th Circuit, the NAM’s amicus brief explained how state and local interference with foreign trade undermines a uniform foreign policy and is harmful to the national economy. Moreover, we argued that Washington’s actions violate the foreign commerce clause and that allowing the state’s actions to stand would give a green light to state and local interference with foreign trade policy.

On February 6, 2018, the EPA issued a final rule that adds an applicability date of February 6, 2020, to the EPA’s 2015 rule governing jurisdictional “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (2015 WOTUS rule). A coalition of environmental groups sued EPA to challenge the rule, arguing that EPA lacks the statutory authority to impose an applicability date. The applicability date rule is important to manufacturers because it precludes application of the 2015 WOTUS rule while EPA develops and issues a sensible replacement WOTUS rule. The 2015 WOTUS rule asserts federal jurisdiction over millions of acres of landscape features throughout the United States, triggering permitting requirements that will slow development and increase permitting costs on manufacturers. The rule’s vague and ambiguous terms also create confusion and increase the risk of inadvertent violations. The NAM intervened in the litigation to help EPA defend the applicability date rule to allow EPA the necessary time to develop and issue a new WOTUS rule.

On 2/16/17, the NAM and other associations moved to intervene in a case brought by North Dakota challenging the EPA's latest action on its Clean Power Plan (CPP). The agency rejected a petition to reconsider the rule, and that decision is now being challenged in court. The case is likely to be affected by the court's soon-to-be-issued ruling in our main challenge to the CPP rule, since the procedural and substantive defects in the petition for reconsideration overlap significantly with the issues raised in the case already before the court. A motion to hold the case in abeyance pending EPA reconsideration was granted, and the case remains in abeyance.

The NAM sought review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) 2015 Clean Power Plan rule governing New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for greenhouse gases from electric utilities. The rule is an attempt to address emissions from new, modified and reconstructed electric generating units. This case is important for manufacturers because EPA should not rely on policy preferences rather than the rule of law.

The NAM sued the EPA with a broad industry coalition to challenge the NSPS rule. We seek to invalidate the rule to pave the way for a sensible alternative. Our briefs argue that the rule is unlawful because EPA’s conclusions are arbitrary and capricious, not supported by substantial evidence, and fail to make the requisite endangerment findings. In 2017, the D.C. Circuit held the rule in abeyance while the current administration considers whether to revise or rescind the rule.

Upon promulgation of the EPA's 2015 rule defining jurisdictional "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act, a coalition of states led by North Dakota sued the EPA in federal district court in North Dakota to challenge the rule. The states then moved for preliminary injunction against the rule, which the court granted within the territorial boundaries of the plaintiff states (North Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming). Soon thereafter, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit claimed authority to consider all challenges to the WOTUS rule—to the exclusion of the North Dakota district court and several other district courts in which lawsuits had been filed, including an NAM coalition lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In January 2018, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Circuit lacked jurisdiction to consider the various WOTUS challenges. This reactivated the North Dakota case, allowing the court to proceed to the states’ merits challenges to the 2015 rule. On June 8, 2018, the NAM filed an amicus brief on behalf of the states that explains how the rule was promulgated without required procedure and how the rule violates the Clean Water Act and the U.S. Constitution.

Oklahoma and a coalition of business groups sued to challenge the EPA's 2015 rule governing jurisdictional "Waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. The rule adversely impacts manufacturers by asserting federal jurisdiction and permitting requirements over millions of acres of dry land throughout the country and by imposing unclear rules on land development. Oklahoma sought a preliminary injunction to stop the rule. A district court denied that injunction, and Oklahoma appealed. In support of their appeal, the NAM filed a coalition amicus brief that explains the impact of the rule on manufacturers and other sectors of the economy and supports an injunction in Oklahoma.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to overturn the city of South Portland, Maine’s ban on crude oil exports from the city’s harbor. The city council claimed it enacted the ban for health and safety reasons, but various public statements revealed a political opposition to the planned transportation of Canadian crude oil by pipeline to the harbor for export. The pipeline owner sued the city, arguing the ban violates the U.S. constitution’s commerce clause. A federal district court sided with the city. If such local energy export bans are allowed to stand, energy production and transportation would be restricted, shutting some products out of some markets, and increasing energy prices for many manufacturers. On appeal to the First Circuit, the NAM’s amicus brief explains the importance of the free trade of energy for manufacturers and argues that the city’s interference with free trade violates the U.S. constitution. On January 10, 2020, the court "sidestepped" the federal constitutional questions and certified three questions to Maine’s high court concerning potential preemption of the ordinance by state law.

In June, 2014, the Sierra Club challenged 9 EPA Clean Air Act rules in court, alleging that provisions in each rule are no longer valid as a result of a decision in April by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The provisions at issue allows companies an affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceeding emissions limits that are caused by malfunctions. A company must prove that the malfunction was sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor maintenance or careless operation, and that it took steps to correct the malfunction and minimize resulting emissions.

In April, the court decided in Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA to vacate portions of a Portland cement industry rule pertaining to the affirmative defense, finding that the EPA lacked the authority to create a defense applicable in federal court. This Sierra Club suit attempts to remove the defense from 9 other rules in which it arises, involving various industries and kinds of equipment. Challenges to regulations must be brought within 60 days of their promulgation unless the petition "is based solely on grounds arising after such sixtieth day . . . ." The suit claims that the NRDC case decision constitutes grounds arising after the rules were promulgated.

In July, the NAM and 13 other business associations filed a motion to intervene in the suit. Manufacturers will be negatively impacted if the suit is successful, since it could make them liable for permit violations arising from unavoidable equipment malfunctions. That liability can arise both from EPA citations and from citizen suits around the country.

The rules at issue govern chemical manufacturing, pulp and paper mills, steel pickling, marine tank vessel loading operations, industrial steam-generating units, nitric acid plants and others.

On July 25, the court ordered the case held in abeyance while the EPA decided on a pending administrative petition from the Sierra Club to revise the rules. The EPA granted the petition, and on December 17, 2014, the court held this case in abeyance until the EPA completes the rules revision process. As of July 30, 2019, the EPA has not yet completed its administrative process.

The MCLA intervened in an environmental group’s legal challenge to the EPA’s rescission of the prior administration’s 2015 “Waters of the United States” rule. The EPA rescinded the 2015 rule because the rule’s lack of clarity resulted in regulatory uncertainty and confusion. Additionally, because some federal courts invalidated the 2015 rule in some parts of the country and not others, manufacturers faced a regulatory patchwork that made compliance across different states very difficult. The EPA’s rescission of the 2015 rule restored regulatory consistency and clarity. A coalition of environmental groups sued to challenge the rescission, arguing that the EPA exceeded its authority in doing so. The NAM and other leading industry trade associations intervened in the case to help defend the rule and to represent the interests of our members in the litigation.

On February 6, 2018, the EPA issued a final rule that adds an applicability date of February 6, 2020, to the EPA’s 2015 rule governing jurisdictional “Waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act (2015 WOTUS rule). A group of states led by New York sued EPA to challenge the rule, arguing that EPA lacks the statutory authority to impose an applicability date. The applicability date rule is important to manufacturers because it precludes application of the 2015 WOTUS rule while EPA develops and issues a sensible replacement WOTUS rule. The 2015 WOTUS rule asserts federal jurisdiction over millions of acres of landscape features throughout the United States, triggering permitting requirements that will slow development and increase permitting costs on manufacturers. The rule’s vague and ambiguous terms also create confusion and increase the risk of inadvertent violations. The NAM intervened in the litigation to help EPA defend the applicability date rule to allow EPA the necessary time to develop and issue a new WOTUS rule.

On February 18, 2022, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse a 9th Circuit decision which sanctions a patchwork system of local regulation of healthcare and retirement benefits in square conflict with ERISA’s expansive preemption provision. This case, ERISA Industry Committee (ERIC) v. City of Seattle, involves a challenge to a Seattle ordinance requiring certain employers to make monthly healthcare expenditures to employees at Seattle-specific thresholds. The 9th Circuit rejected the challenge even though Congress intended for federal law—the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)—to provide a single uniform national scheme for the administration of healthcare and retirement plans without interference from states or municipalities. Indeed, the 1st and 4th Circuits have held that similar laws are preempted under well-established ERISA preemption principles.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in support of Supreme Court review explaining that ERISA preemption plays a critical role in making benefits possible for employees, and state and local rules that conflict with ERISA’s national uniformity must be struck down. As a practical matter, state and local mandates like this one harm workers, forcing employers to divert resources away from providing quality health coverage, and instead spend money to comply with a complex and mismatched patchwork of state and local rules. Already, localities across the country have begun to adopt similar ordinances with varied minimum benefit rates, timelines, definitions, and recordkeeping requirements—a completely unworkable, fragmented regulatory regime. Supreme Court intervention is sorely needed.

Unfortunately, on November 21, 2022, the Supreme Court denied cert.

The NAM filed an amicus brief to oppose overbroad government investigations intended to chill corporate scientific inquiry, debate, and discussion. ExxonMobil sued the attorneys general of New York and Massachusetts to challenge overbroad subpoenas and civil investigative demands seeking more than 40 years of communications between the company and other parties involving the topic of climate change. On appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the NAM’s brief explains that corporations contribute to important policy discussions involving economic, scientific and other issues of public concern and that expansive use of government investigatory powers can chill corporations’ contributions to the free exchange of ideas.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in support of the pharmaceutical industry's challenge to the Trump administration's Most-Favored Nation (MFN) Rule. The rule, which bypassed the notice and comment process that agencies must ordinarily follow before making rules effective, creates a new payment model for Medicare Part B drugs, tying payments for certain drugs (a set of 50 that encompass a high percentage of Medicare Part B drug spending) to the lowest price paid by other wealthy countries. In this case, the NAM filed an amicus brief in the Northern District of California in support of plaintiffs'--the Biotechnology Innovation Organization (BIO) and two California-based biotechnology organizations--motion for preliminary injunction. A near-identical case was filed in the District of Maryland by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and groups representing cancer treatment providers. The NAM's brief argues that the MFN rule is yet another fatally flawed attempt by the government to use the COVID-19 pandemic as the basis for an end-run around the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) notice and comment procedures. The NAM's members have a vital institutional interest in ensuring that the federal government is held to the procedural safeguards provided in the APA.

Happily, oOn December 28, 2020, the district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary. Injunction .

The NAM filed an amicus brief seeking to enjoin the federal government from publicly disclosing sensitive risk assessment and hazard modeling documents associated with Sunoco's pipeline operations. Sunoco initiated this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for D.C. after the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration—which had historically protected this type of information from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) given its sensitive nature—reversed course and sought to disclose the information publicly within a matter of days. Our amicus brief argues that risk assessment and hazard modeling documents provided to the federal government to help protect against a major physical or cyber-attack are critical to maintaining pipeline operations and should be protected from disclosure under FOIA for both security and commercial reasons. Manufacturers in the oil & gas industry and beyond customarily protect the type of information at issue in this case from public disclosure due to significant threats to disruption of operations and public safety from bad actors seeking to exploit potential vulnerabilities. The government's decision to disregard the applicable FOIA exemptions presents grave concerns regarding the treatment of similar information that manufacturers routinely provide to regulators.

Citing the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext for emergency rulemaking, the Departments of Labor and Homeland Security issued two rules in mid-October 2020 creating a series of new restrictions on the H-1B visa program that would have slammed the door on talented workers in hard to fill specialty and technical roles. The rules were especially unsound because they were directly issued as final rules, with no notice or opportunity to provide comment on their harmful impacts despite cost estimates that put these rules among the most expensive federal rules ever issued. The NAM joined with a coalition of business groups, health care organizations and prominent universities to challenge the rules, filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration arguing that they were unlawful and hugely detrimental to American competitiveness. On December 1, 2020 a federal judge agreed and handed manufacturers a crucial victory that immediately vacated both rules and protected the H-1B program.

In July 2020, the NAM filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California against the Trump administration’s unlawful restrictions to a wide range of nonimmigrant work visas. The restrictions, which were part of a June 22 Presidential Proclamation that essentially shut off the flow of high-skilled workers for hard-to-fill jobs in the manufacturing sector, were the subject of intense member interest and concern. The restrictions were so disruptive that they quickly began to inflict irreparable harm on our members, and we argued that they lacked legal basis because economic policy–the justification for the Proclamation—is a uniquely Congressional domain, and the Proclamation exceeds the President’s constitutional authority by rewriting existing law. On October 1, 2020, Judge White granted our request for a preliminary injunction. The Justice Department has appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit for review.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia supporting employers in their efforts to retain highly skilled workers. Spouses of H-1B skilled workers who have been approved for permanent residence can apply for and receive H-4 visas allowing them to work in the United States. If this rule were invalidated, manufacturers would lose access to leading talent, harming their ability to remain competitive in the global economy. A federal district court ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the case, but the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. Now, following cross-motions for summary judgment, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the court to preserve H-4 employment authorization. The NAM’s brief details the devastating impact that eliminating H-4s would have on affected employees and their families, employers, and the health of the overall economy.

Happily, on March 28, 2023, the district court upheld the rule allowing H-4 visa-holders to apply for employment authorization.

The NAM led a group of associations in filing two World Trade Organization (WTO) statements because Thailand failed to abide by its WTO commitments on customs valuation and now threatens a company with fines of more than $2 billion and imprisonment of several individuals. Proper valuation is important because many manufacturers operate through interconnected commercial relationships and supply and production chains with producers and suppliers throughout the United States and foreign countries. The statements emphasize the importance of the WTO’s customs valuation rules to international trade, which allow companies to produce goods as efficiently as possible and to access international consumers in the global marketplace.

The case concerns a group of Louisiana parishes, supported by the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and the Louisiana Attorney General as intervenors, seeking relief for alleged damage to Louisiana’s coastal environment based on acts committed during World War II that were controlled, directed, and regulated by the federal government. After learning of the WWII connection to plaintiffs’ claims via the plaintiffs’ 2018 expert report, the defendant oil companies sought to remove 42 related cases to federal court. In the defendants' first appeal, the Fifth Circuit held that removal was untimely because the defendants should have ascertained the federal question earlier based on vague references buried in an exhibit to the plaintiffs’ complaint. On September 15, 2020, the NAM filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants’ petition for rehearing en banc, arguing that the court's decision created uncertainty in all forms of removal, forcing defendants to file protective removal notices for fear that even equivocal and uncertain statements by plaintiffs may start the 30-day removal clock. The NAM maintained that the decision undermined the purpose of the removal statute to the detriment of both litigants and courts. On August 5, 2021, the court agreed with the defendants that their removal based on federal-officer jurisdiction was timely, but remanded the case for consideration of whether federal question jurisdiction exists.

On remand, the district courts found federal questions jurisdiction wanting, which the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The panel held that the defendants failed to present evidence that they acted pursuant to a federal officer's directive in the absence a contract that made them accountable to the federal government. On November 16, 2022, the NAM filed an amicus brief in support of the defendants' petition for a panel rehearing or, in the alternative, rehearing in banc, arguing that the panel decision conflicts with Congress's expressive directive, Supreme Court precedent, and other Circuits' case law, which do not require evidence of an express contract to establish "guidance or control" by the federal government for removal purposes.

Unfortunately, on November 29, 2022, the Fifth Circuit the petition.

The NAM filed an amicus brief supporting safety incentive programs and post-incident drug testing. Since 2016, the NAM has fought the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration's (OSHA) overreaching "injury and illness" rule, which sought to restrict employers' ability to administer drug tests to employees after safety incidents. The rule also limited incentive programs that encourage safe workplaces. The incoming presidential administration in 2017 announced it would reconsider the rule, then OSHA issued guidance to clarify that post-incident drug testing and safety incentive programs are not prohibited. This case is important because a favorable ruling will help preserve pro-safety measures and keep a future administration from easily reinstating the guidance that was so harmful to manufacturers. The NAM’s brief asks a federal judge to invalidate the regulatory provisions underpinning OSHA's 2016 restrictions on post-incident drug testing and safety incentive programs.

The NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to grant cert to reinforce the preemptive authority of the federal government to regulate pharmaceutical drug labeling. Federal law bars drug manufacturers from unilaterally changing drug labels to include warnings for off-label uses; in fact, manufacturers can face potential criminal liability for “misbranding” a drug if the label includes information about unapproved uses. Yet in this case, Janssen Pharm., et al. v. A.Y., et al., a Philadelphia jury awarded plaintiffs $70 million in damages because the manufacturer did not include a warning about an off-label use of the drug Risperdal. There are over 10,000 nearly identical cases still pending against the company in Pennsylvania state court. Manufacturers across federally regulated industries are subject to carefully calibrated federal labeling regimes that provide the certainty and predictability needed to operate. As the NAM’s brief argues, the use of state tort law to undermine federal labeling requirements will, if allowed to continue, create a confusing and ultimately destructive “dual track” system where federal agencies and state tort law will conflict and ultimately undermine the federal goal of targeting labeling to a specific audience.

Unfortunately, on May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court denied cert.

The NAM filed an amicus brief to argue that the 6th Circuit should hold that businesses that hire independent trucking companies to transport goods are not liable for the negligent acts of those independent truckers. An individual was injured in a traffic collision involving a trucking company hired by a freight broker. The injured person argued that the broker was negligent in selecting the trucking company because it knew or should have know about the company’s prior regulatory infractions. The freight broker responded that the hiring directly concerns the services a freight broker provides under the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994, and therefore preempts state law, including state common law for negligence. The district court agreed. On appeal to the 6th Circuit, the NAM’s amicus brief explained the careful balance that congress struck in regulating drivers under the Act, and why the plaintiffs’ theory of liability is unworkable in practice.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in the Second Circuit seeking to uphold a summary judgment ruling in favor of the manufacturing defendants in a helicopter design defect case based on the doctrine of implied field preemption. The case arose from a fatal crash of a U.S. Army helicopter. The decedents’ estates brought design defect and manufacturing defect claims against the manufacturers of the helicopter, even though the Army required that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approve all aspects of the helicopter’s design. The trial court rejected the plaintiffs’ claims after finding clear congressional intent to occupy the entire field of aviation safety, including aviation product liability cases. The NAM joined the General Aviation Manufacturers’ Association (GAMA) in filing an amicus brief arguing for affirmance of the trial court’s ruling. As the NAM’s brief explains, the FAA exercises pervasive authority to establish aviation design standards and approve compliance with those standards. The FAA also retains ultimate, exclusive authority over changes to approved designs and monitors aviation products throughout their lives in service to address any safety issues. This federal regulatory scheme requires preemption to prevent an unworkable array of conflicting requirements that would jeopardize the safety and viability of the aviation industry—in the United States and globally.

The NAM filed an amicus brief supporting BNSF and underscoring the importance of the freight rail network for manufacturers that rely on it to efficiently move materials. The plaintiff seeks an unprecedented injunction restricting the type and quantity of goods that can be shipped over an interstate railway that crosses its land, particularly hazardous materials. Such an injunction would disregard the exclusive federal regulatory scheme governing interstate rail transportation, would undermine shippers’ common-carriage rights and would obstruct interstate commerce in economically critical products. The NAM’s brief explained why the court should not allow the obstruction of commerce of lawful products by giving landowners an unprecedented ability to veto the quantity or types of cargo being shipped through interstate commerce.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to oppose misguided efforts to impose “public nuisance” liability on energy manufacturers. The city of New York sued several energy companies to seek damages for local impacts of climate change, arguing that the defendants’ sale of fossil fuels is a public nuisance that entitles the city to financial compensation. This theory of liability poses a grave risk for manufacturers because it would impose liability on manufacturers despite a plaintiff’s inability to prove the manufacturer actually caused the plaintiff’s injuries. A federal district court dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal to the Second Circuit, the NAM’s amicus brief explains how Supreme Court precedent forecloses such lawsuits by recognizing the federal legislature as the appropriate branch of government to set national energy policy, including addressing climate change. Our brief also highlights the extensive technological innovations that manufacturers have already deployed to reduce carbon emissions, and which they will continue to pursue to address climate change and other environmental challenges.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in the Texas Supreme Court to seek reversal of a Texas appellate court decision that improperly imposed liability on a manufacturer for its alleged failure to adequately warn of risks from one of its commercial air conditioners. An experienced HVAC repairman was injured when an HVAC compressor released pressurized fluids. The repairman sued the manufacturer, claiming the warning of such releases was insufficiently descriptive. A Texas jury found in the plaintiff’s favor, and an appeals court affirmed. In support of review by the Texas Supreme Court, the NAM filed an amicus brief that argued against the court of appeals’ unsupported expansion of the duty of a manufacturer to warn licensed professionals of known risks. The NAM’s brief also asks the court to clarify the jury instructions in failure-to-warn cases such as this.

The court granted review in June 2020. On April 16, 2021, the court affirmed the jury verdict, however the court took a giant leap forward by agreeing with NAM and Emerson's position that a jury in a design-defect case can be instructed on the five risk-utility balancing factors commonly used in other jurisdictions. The court failed to address the court of appeals’ unsupported expansion of the duty of a manufacturer to warn licensed professionals of known risks, deeming the issue waived based on Emerson's failure to object to a particular jury instruction. The NAM filed an amicus brief in support of Emerson's petition for rehearing on that issue, arguing that the court should have requested supplemental briefing before disposing of a case on an issue not raised or briefed by the parties.

Unfortunately, on September 3, 2021, the Texas Supreme Court denied the petition for rehearing.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in support of an application to the U.S. Supreme Court to stay a remand order transferring litigation involving “public nuisance” claims related to climate change to state court. Twenty-six energy company defendants in the case filed the stay request to allow appeals to progress on the question of which court has proper jurisdiction over the claims. The case is part of a coordinated, national litigation campaign involving over two dozen public nuisance cases filed in carefully chosen states and federal circuits by agenda-driven lawyers and activists. This issue is important to energy producers and all manufacturers because public nuisance claims involving climate change implicate federal questions and the preemption of federal laws that are appropriately heard by federal courts rather than state courts. The NAM’s amicus brief explained to the court the broader context of the plaintiffs’ legal strategy and that these suits implicate federal issues and therefore should be in federal court. Unfortunately, Chief Justice Roberts denied the stay petition. Thereafter, following the Fourth Circuit's decision to remand the case to state court, the NAM filed an amicus brief in support of BP's petition for cert. pressing the high court to resolve the circuit split regarding the scope of appellate review of remand orders involving the federal officer removal statute. Happily, on October 2, 2020, the Court granted review.

On November 23, the NAM filed an amicus brief on the merits in support of removal jurisdiction in this case, asking the Court to ensure that lower courts evaluate all grounds for removal prior to issuing remand orders.

On May 17, 2021, in a 7-1 decision with Justice Gorsuch writing for the majority, the Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s denial of full federal appellate review of the important jurisdictional issues raised by this case and remanded the case for the Fourth Circuit to consider those issues in the first instance. Unfortunately, on April 7, 2022, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's remand order, holding that none of the asserted basis for removal permit the Court to exercise jurisdiction.

On November 17, 2022, the NAM filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioners' petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for cert. The NAM's brief again argues that the subject matter and remedies sought through this litigation are inherently national, as well as legislative and regulatory in nature, and that such complex policy matters should not be driven by individual state judges in individual state courtrooms applying (or misapplying) various state liability laws.

Unfortunately, on April 24, 2023, the Court denied the petition.

The NAM filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington supporting protection of confidential communications between taxpayers and their non-attorney tax advisors. Federal law under the “tax Privilege” generally makes such communications confidential, but an exception exists for communications relating to “the promotion of the direct or indirect participation” in a “tax shelter.” While a tax shelter is broadly defined, “promotion” is not, and the government wants to remove routine tax advice and common tax planning from the protections of the tax privilege, which would make it more difficult for manufacturers access to important tax advice. The NAM filed an amicus brief arguing that Congress did not intend such a broad interpretation, tax policy favors the free flow of information between taxpayers and their advisors, and routine advice should not make a tax advisor a promoter of a tax shelter. The court refused to consider NAM's or any other amici briefs and the case was closed in 2017.

This white paper explores the First Amendment implications of mandatory product disclosures and transparency initiatives, when such disclosures compel manufacturers to disparage their own products, or to in-effect take sides in controversial public policy debates they might otherwise avoid. Such mandates raise important free speech concerns under the First Amendment, and as a result courts should apply strict scrutiny when reviewing them.

The First Amendment prohibits public officials from wielding the coercive power of the government to silence private organizations—including corporations—with differing or opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public concern. Corporations, either alone or through their participation in trade associations, and in conjunction with other third parties, make substantial and important contributions to issues of public debate contributing their industry knowledge, experience and research to enhance understanding of important issues of public concern.

This white paper argues that in order to safeguard these rights, Government officials and courts must cautiously evaluate motives for subpoenas and investigative demands that target activities relating to legitimate participation in the public policy process and must guard against the use of these powers to silence or censure particular points of view.