Law Center Search Results

On February 12, 2024, the NAM filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to address whether the Clean Water Act allows the EPA to include generic (and vague) prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permitholders to enforcement for exceedances of water quality standards. A NPDES permit is required to discharge a pollutant through a “point source” into “a water of the United States.” In this case, San Franscisco v. EPA, the 9th Circuit affirmed EPA’s use of a generic prohibition in San Francisco’s NPDES permit for a water treatment facility—stating that water discharge “shall not cause or contribute to the violation of any applicable water quality standard.” This ruling directly conflicts with 2nd Circuit precedent deeming generic prohibitions impermissible and could impact manufacturers’ ability to assert the permit shield defense—a defense that provides protection from liability if a manufacturer is operating under a valid permit and its facility discharges waste in accordance with the permit. Permit operators need specific guidance as to allowable discharges in accordance with the permit.

Our brief urges the Supreme Court to review this case to resolve the circuit split and highlights the key role of the permit shield defense in guarding against citizen suits and unforeseen enforcement actions.

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 urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse a deeply flawed Eighth Circuit opinion applying an erroneous standard to the admissibility of expert testimony and usurping the gatekeeping role of the trial court. This multidistrict litigation involves allegations that 3M’s Bair Hugger patient warming device causes surgical site infections. After conducting a thoughtful and thorough review of plaintiffs’ general causation experts’ opinions—a faithful application of Fed. Rule of Evidence 702—the district court found that the opinions included large analytical gaps and were not generally accepted, and, accordingly, granted summary judgment in favor of 3M.

The Eighth Circuit reversed, applying a pre-Daubert standard. Under that standard, it is an abuse of discretion to exclude expert testimony unless the experts’ opinions are “so fundamentally unsupported” that they’re of no help to a jury. This obsolete standard essentially abrogates any discretion a district court has to exclude expert testimony.

The NAM filed an amicus brief urging the Court to grant 3M’s cert petition to resolve the widespread confusion in the courts on applying Rule 702 and safeguard the scientific underpinnings of the American health care system. The Eighth Circuit’s liberal admissibility standard threatens to adversely affect those who rely on the benefits of a medical device or drug—approximately 50,000 people per day. Such critical products, which are subject to substantial scientific analysis and review by the federal government, should not be deemed defective by juries applying an erroneous, overly permissive admissibility standard.

Unfortunately, on May 16, 2022, the Supreme Court denied cert.

The NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse the lower courts’ dismissal of a challenge to a California ballot initiative that regulates the conduct of farmers, manufacturers, and producers nationwide. Proposition 12 bans the sale of imported pork and veal in California unless farmers and producers outside of California meet strict animal confinement standards set by California voters. The NAM argued in the brief that Proposition 12 violates the Commerce Clause by regulating conduct beyond California’s borders, impinging on other states’ sovereign authority to legislate within their own jurisdictions, and, substantially burdening out-of-state pork producers absent a sufficient and legitimate local interest.

On May 28, 2022, the Supreme Court granted the cert. petition. On June 17, the NAM filed an amicus brief asserting the same arguments included in its amicus brief filed in support of the U.S. Supreme Court granting review. This litigation is important to all manufacturers because if upheld, Proposition 12 may embolden other states to regulate out-of-state conduct, resulting in a complex web of inconsistent and competing extraterritorial regulations in the agriculture and food industries, and beyond.

Unfortunately, on May 11, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the 9th Circuit's decision affirming the lower court's dismissal of the case.

On October 27, 2023, the NAM filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold bankruptcy courts’ broad equitable authority to issue third-party releases to ensure the success of a corporate reorganization plan. In this case, Purdue Pharma sought to resolve mass civil claims alleging that the company contributed to the opioid epidemic through the bankruptcy system. The Sackler family—owners of Purdue—agreed to personally contribute billions of dollars to the bankruptcy provided that all civil claims against them were released. A trial court ruled that the bankruptcy court lacked authority under the Bankruptcy Code to approve a reorganization plan that included nonconsensual releases for third parties (like the Sacklers), a decision the 2nd Circuit later reversed. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider “[w]hether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent.

We argue in our amicus brief that nonconsensual third-party releases are important tools for addressing mass tort claims efficiently and fairly. Bankruptcy courts can confirm reorganization plans containing nonconsensual third-party releases consistent with due process requirements by giving claimants notice of the releases and an opportunity to be heard.

On September 21, 2023, the NAM filed an amicus brief in support of energy manufacturers’ petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of a lower court’s remand order in a case asserting state liability claims related to climate change. This is a case seeking to hold oil and gas companies liable for the impacts of climate change in Minnesota. The 8th Circuit upheld the federal district court’s decision to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In our brief, we argue 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. This case has important implications for all manufacturers because of the growing trend among plaintiffs’ lawyers of using public nuisance and consumer deception claims to seek monetary damages from manufacturers for broad, societal issues that are ill-suited for consideration by a patchwork of state court determinations and should be addressed in the policy process.

Unfortunately, on January 8, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the energy manufacturers' petition.

On Wednesday, December 28, the NAM filed an amicus brief in support of energy manufacturers’ petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the lower courts’ remand order in a case asserting “public nuisance” claims related to climate change. This case, Chevron Corporation, et al. v. San Mateo County, California, et al., is one of over two dozen public nuisance cases seeking to drive national energy policy on climate change. The 9th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In our brief, the NAM 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. This case has important implications for all manufacturers because of the growing trend among plaintiffs’ lawyers of using public nuisance and consumer deception claims to seek monetary damages from manufacturers for broad, societal issues that are ill-suited for consideration by a patchwork of state court determinations and should be addressed in the policy process.

Unfortunately, on April 24, 2023, the Court denied the energy manufacturers' petition.

On January 5, 2023, the NAM filed an amicus brief in support of energy manufacturers’ petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the lower courts’ remand order in a case asserting “public nuisance” claims related to climate change. This case is one of over two dozen public nuisance cases seeking to drive national energy policy on climate change. The 1st Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In our brief, the NAM 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. This case has important implications for all manufacturers because of the growing trend among plaintiffs’ lawyers of using public nuisance and consumer deception claims to seek monetary damages from manufacturers for broad, societal issues that are ill-suited for consideration by a patchwork of state court determinations and should be addressed in the policy process.

Unfortunately, on April 24, 2023, the Court denied the energy manufacturers' petition.

On January 5, 2023, the NAM filed an amicus brief in support of energy manufacturers’ petition seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the lower courts’ remand order in a case asserting “public nuisance” claims related to climate change. This case is one of over two dozen public nuisance cases seeking to drive national energy policy on climate change. The 9th Circuit upheld the district court’s decision to remand the case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

In our brief, the NAM 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. The NAM also argues that the petitioners plainly satisfy the requirements for federal officer removal by asserting they are “person[s]” in a “civil action” “for or relating to” acts performed while “acting under” federal officers and “raise[d] a colorable federal defense”—which are the only requirements Congress and the Court have established for when the statute provides a right of removal. This case has important implications for all manufacturers because of the growing trend among plaintiffs’ lawyers of using public nuisance and consumer deception claims to seek monetary damages from manufacturers for broad, societal issues that are ill-suited for consideration by a patchwork of state court determinations and should be addressed in the policy process.

Unfortunately, on April 24, 2023, the Court denied the energy manufacturers' petition.

On April 1, 2024, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve a circuit split regarding the proper legal framework to apply for determining whether time spent putting on and taking off personal protective equipment (“donning and doffing” time) is compensable under the Fair Labor Standards Act. In this case, the plaintiff oil rig workers sued their employer under the FLSA for failure to compensate them for time spent donning and doffing generic PPE—fire retardant overalls, steal-toe boots, hard hats and safety glasses—at the beginning or end of their workday. The district court held that the time is not compensable, but the 3rd Circuit reversed on appeal. The 3rd Circuit rejected the test applied by the lower court—also adopted by the 2nd Circuit—and embraced a different, more plaintiff-friendly test to govern compensability determinations.

We argue that review is necessary to resolve the circuit split and provide certainty to manufacturers regarding their compensability determinations. If the U.S. Supreme Court does not agree to hear the case, manufacturers will be harmed by the 3rd Circuit’s test which not only calls standard compensation practices into question, but potentially expands the workday to include activities commonly completed at home and could spur a flood of litigation.

On November 6, 2023, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse a lower court decision granting preliminary relief in favor of a union—including forcing the employer to reinstate terminated employees—while the Board’s adjudication process remains ongoing. Under the National Labor Relations Act, federal district courts are empowered to grant preliminary relief at the NLRB’s request while an NLRB adjudication remains pending. In this case, the 6th Circuit affirmed a district court’s grant of preliminary relief—which is considered an extraordinary remedy reserved for extreme cases—under an unduly permissive standard. Specifically, the 6th Circuit, along with the 3rd, 5th, 10th and 11th Circuits, has held that the NLRB is entitled to preliminary relief upon a showing of reasonable cause to believe that the unfair labor practice alleged has occurred and that preliminary relief is just and proper. By contrast, other circuit courts have applied the traditional, and more stringent, four factor test to determine whether the NLRB is entitled to preliminary relief. Under that test, the NLRB must establish that (1) that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its claim, (2) that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) that the balance of equities tips in its favor, and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest.

We argue in our amicus brief that the Court should grant Starbuck’s petition to resolve the circuit split and that the 6th Circuit’s lenient standard places unreasonable burdens on employers subject to unfair labor practice proceedings.

Happily, on January 12, 2024, the Court granted the petition.

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.

On April 1, 2024, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Hawaii Supreme Court decision allowing plaintiffs to pursue claims under state law that seek to hold energy companies liable for climate change. In this case, the trial court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ state law claims, arguing that the claims are preempted by federal common law or the Clean Air Act. The Hawaii Supreme Court affirmed that decision, reasoning that neither federal common law nor the CAA preempt the plaintiffs’ state law claims. Our brief urges the Court to grant the petition because the subject matter and remedies sought through this litigation are inherently national, as well as legislative and regulatory in nature—such complex policy matters should not be driven by individual state judges in individual state courtrooms applying (or misapplying) various state liability laws.

The NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review California’s imposition of over $300 million in civil penalties under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and False Advertising Law (FAL) without providing fair notice of the conduct that gave rise to those penalties and the scope of the potential punishment. In this case, the trial court imposed $344 million in civil penalties under the UCL and FAL—an amount 50 times greater than the largest penalties previously awarded under those statutes and larger than all other reported UCL and FAL awards combined—based on communications about FDA-approved pelvic mesh products. A California court of appeal reduced the civil penalty award to approximately $302 million but rejected the defendants-appellants’ argument that the trial court’s imposition of over $300 million in penalties violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Supreme Court of California denied review.

We argue in our amicus brief that California’s—as well as many other states’—unfair, deceptive, and abusive practices statutes have failed to provide fair notice of the conduct that gives rise to civil penalties and the scope of the potential punishment. We urge the Supreme Court to grant the defendants-appellants’ petition for certiorari to (1) articulate the constitutional bounds for civil penalties; (2) establish principles states can use to ensure their civil penalties are objective and rational; and (3) draw from the principles the Court applies in the punitive damages and civil forfeiture contexts to place similar bounds on the aggregation of “per violation” civil penalties.

Unfortunately, on February 22, 2023, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.

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.

On July 8, the NAM filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to grant cert in one of over two dozen public nuisance cases seeking to drive national energy policy on climate change. The case, Suncor Energy Inc., et al v. Board of Cnty. Commissioners of Boulder Cnty., et al., 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 to federal court because they arise under federal law. On the few occasions where federal courts have reached the substance of these claims, the courts have concluded that the claims arise under federal common law and are displaced by the Clean Air Act.

Earlier this year, the 10th Circuit agreed with the plaintiffs’ novel argument that their claims became viable under state law and could not be removed because Congress exercised its authority and displaced the federal common law by enacting the Clean Air Act—a theory that the Second Circuit referred to in a related case as “too strange to seriously contemplate.” Further, the 10th Circuit concluded that under the well-pleaded complaint rule, federal courts are not permitted to look behind the veneer of the claims’ state law labels even when the labels are clearly masking federal law claims. In support of Supreme Court review, 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 April 24, 2023, the Court denied the petition for cert.

On April 5, 2024, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce the robust pleading standards required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act to assert a securities fraud claim. Public companies, including many NAM members, are often the targets of frivolous securities litigation. The PSLRA created a heightened pleading standard for bringing securities fraud suits. Nevertheless, a 9th Circuit panel allowed the plaintiffs in this case to rely on an expert’s post hoc analysis to support their securities fraud claim without alleging with particularity the contents of any internal report or data source that would have put the defendant’s executives on notice that their public statements about who was purchasing the company’s gaming processing units were false or misleading when made.

We argue in our amicus brief that Supreme Court review is needed to resolve a circuit split on the pleading standards under the PSLRA. The panel’s decision will also create a playbook for securities plaintiffs to evade the PSLRA’s stringent pleading requirements by pointing to post-hoc, made-for-litigation expert opinions resting on unreliable assumptions and devoid of any basis in internal company data.

On April 17, 2023, the NAM filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse a North Carolina Supreme Court decision disregarding precedent that precludes a state from taxing the sale of goods that occurs outside its borders. Quad Graphics is a Wisconsin-based commercial printer that prints books, magazines, catalogs, and direct-mail items for customers throughout the United States, including in North Carolina. The North Carolina Department of Revenue imposed a sales tax on Quad for sales to North Carolina residents even though those sales were consummated in Wisconsin by passing title to the merchandise (and risk of loss) when the merchandise arrived at a common carrier’s shipping dock outside of North Carolina for shipping. The North Carolina Supreme Court upheld the tax, concluding that subsequent U.S. Supreme Court precedent implicitly overruled McLeod v. J.E. Dilworth Co., 322 U.S. 327 (1944), which precludes taxing out-of-state sales.

We argued in our amicus brief that review is necessary for manufacturers to have clear rules about where and when taxes will be imposed. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court should grant the petition because the Commerce Clause precludes a state regulating conduct outside its borders. All manufacturers have an interest in limiting a state’s ability to regulate conduct occurring outside its borders as well as reducing the untenable risk of double taxation.

Unfortunately, on June 20, 2023, the Court denied the petition for certiorari.