Each weekend, the DealBook newsletter delves into one topic or theme, providing reports and analysis to help you better understand key business issues. If you have not yet received our daily newsletter, sign up here.
The Supreme Court’s new term, which begins Monday, is littered with high-profile cases on affirmative action, voting, religion and gay rights. These high-level controversies can overshadow other aspects of the court’s work, particularly important cases on its business docket, such as how businesses are regulated and employ diverse. may affect the
cut the administrative state
In recent years, the Supreme Court has become increasingly skeptical of executive authority. In his final term, he limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to tackle climate change and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s authority to limit the spread of the coronavirus in the workplace.
On November 7, the court will hear two arguments that could help challenge the constitutionality of two other agencies, the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Both lawsuits are about timing, asking a judge to determine how long people and businesses need to sue with agencies seeking to regulate their behavior before going to federal court.
first case, Axon Enterprise v. Federal Trade Commissionconcerns a company that manufactures body cameras for law enforcement and was investigated by the FTC as part of its merger review. Rather than wait for the conclusion of proceedings before the agency, the company sought to appeal to federal court, arguing that the agency’s structure was unconstitutional and lacked authority to consider a merger.
Even dismissing that attempt, a split panel of three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said: Axon’s arguments were persuasive.
second case, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cochraneis about an accountant accused of fraud by the SEC and contains similar issues. Accountant Michelle Cochran tried to challenge the agency’s structure in federal court before the administrative process was completed. The Fifth Circuit Consented She should be able to bring up her own case, causing a sort of conflict between federal appeals courts that often prompt Supreme Court review.
Where Injured Workers and Consumers Can Sue
On November 8, a judge will consider whether companies can be required to agree to sue in state courts as a condition of doing business in the state.
Case, Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railroada Virginia man who said he developed colon cancer from exposure to toxic chemicals while working in Virginia and Ohio for the Virginia-based and incorporated Norfolk Southern Railroad Company, Virginia about Robert Mallory, a man in the
The Supreme Court has long said that a company can be sued wherever it is incorporated or headquartered. It can also be sued in certain cases if the plaintiff’s allegations relate to the defendant’s contact with the state.
Mr. Mallory does not rely on any of these grounds for jurisdiction. Rather, it points to Pennsylvania law that requires companies doing business in Pennsylvania to agree to be sued there. The railroad company says the law is unconstitutional.
Mallory’s lawyers say the law is a “take or leave” contract that many businesses use to force consumers and workers to arbitrate or to file lawsuits far from home. is a kind of mirror image of
of Briefs that support railroads, The Biden administration said the Pennsylvania law “reaches interstate federalism by reaching beyond Pennsylvania’s borders and allowing state courts to try cases that have no legitimate interest in Pennsylvania.” said.
Pigs, Cruelty, and Interstate Commerce
On October 11th, the court will hold a hearing. National Pork Producers Council vs. RossThis is a challenge to California law aimed at reducing cruelty to animals, which requires that pork sold in the state comes from pigs raised in free-roaming spaces.
The law prohibits the sale of most pork in California unless it comes from a sow raised in a 24-square-foot space. However, most sows across the country are kept in much smaller pens.
“These pens,” wrote a group challenging California law. Overview of the Supreme Court“Provide approximately 14 square feet of space and do not allow sows to turn for health, safety, animal welfare and husbandry reasons.”
Given the size of California’s market, the state is effectively seeking to regulate operations outside its territory, in violation of the Constitution, according to pork producers.
A unanimous panel of three judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco dismissed the claim The extrastate effect of the law invalidated the law. “There is no impermissible extraterritorial effect in a state law that regulates conduct only within the state, including the sale of products within the state,” Judge Sandra S. Ikta wrote to the panel.
The Supreme Court’s ruling could affect many other laws, such as state laws addressing climate change and interstate travel for abortions.
Business Impact of Two Marquee Cases
Two cases of social controversy that have received a lot of attention also have a big impact on business. In a major challenge to the affirmative action programs, the courts may void the race-sensitive admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. There may be knock-on effects for employers looking to attract a diverse workforce.
Defenders of the program argued that the pipeline of highly qualified minority candidates would tighten, and that the logic of the ruling could imply that employer diversity under federal laws prohibiting discrimination in the workplace. Efforts may be challenged.
briefs to support colleges A report submitted by companies such as Apple, General Motors, Google, Meta Platforms, Starbucks and many others relied on leading universities to develop diverse leaders, noting that “racial and ethnic diversity contributes to business performance.” improve the
The court is also considering whether a Colorado web designer could refuse to create a website celebrating same-sex marriage. , a ruling in favor of the designer could allow other companies engaged in expressive acts to discriminate against groups they do not approve of.
What do you think? Which court decision could have the greatest impact on your business? Let us know: dealbook@nytimes.com.