June 20, 2025
FDA v. R. J. Reynolds Vapor Co. (23-1187)
Retailers who would sell a new tobacco product if not for the FDA’s denial order may seek judicial review of that order under 21 U. S. C. §387l(a)(1).
Esteras v. United States (23-7483)
A district court considering whether to revoke a defendant’s term of supervised release may not consider 18 U. S. C. §3553(a)(2)(A), which covers retribution vis-à-vis the defendant’s underlying criminal offense.
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. (23-1226)
The Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency’s interpretation of a statute. District courts must independently determine the law’s meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency’s interpretation.
Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA (24-7)
The fuel producers have Article III standing to challenge EPA’s approval under the Clean Air Act of California regulations requiring automakers to manufacture more electric vehicles and fewer gasoline-powered vehicles.
Stanley v. City of Stanford (23-997)
To prevail under 42 U. S. C. §12112(a), a plaintiff must plead and prove that she held or desired a job, and could perform its essential functions with or without reasonable accommodation, at the time of an employer’s alleged act of disability-based discrimination; the judgment of the Eleventh Circuit is affirmed.
Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization (24-20)
The Promoting Security and Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act’s personal jurisdiction provision does not violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause because the statute reasonably ties the assertion of jurisdiction over the PLO and PA to conduct involving the United States and implicating sensitive foreign policy matters within the prerogative of the political branches.