During the Supreme Court’s January 2024 session, Justices heard the oral argument for a case that could substantially transform the current landscape of administrative law. In Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo, the plaintiffs brought forth a challenge to the landmark Chevron Doctrine, which many believe lies at the core of the modern administrative state. The Chevron Doctrine holds that for issues of interpretations of ambiguous phrasing in legislation, deference is given to the federal agency rather than the courts. The plaintiff’s oral arguments support the criticism that the Chevron Doctrine is based on a fundamentally problematic rubric of first-stage and second-stage interpretation, supported not only by the language of the Chevron opinion itself but also other administration-deference-matter-related legal precedent. However, the interpretation of the non-delegation doctrine and the debate surrounding the separation of powers is a macro-scoped issue that necessitates the Chevron Doctrine in the first place. Instead, alternative interpretive frameworks of non-delegation can help both courts and society reconcile constitutionality with practical governance.
Read More
For the United States, a nation deeply embedded in individualism and liberal rights, the trade-off between crime prevention and personal privacy has always been a contentious balance to strike. With the advent of emergent technologies, the battle over right-to-data between the state and the individual has continued to dominate legal theory. Can governmental and regulatory agencies legitimately demand that private firms provide information based on concerns of national security or suspicions of criminal offense? In 2020, the preeminent multinational law firm Covington & Burling LLP was subjected to a cyberattack carried out by hackers associated with Halfnium, an organization suspected of having Chinese state backing. Many of Covington’s high-profile clients – including two hundred ninety-eight publicly traded companies – were victims of this leakage. Due to the weight of these companies in the financial market, the Securities Exchange Commission filed suit against Covington in a D.C. federal court order to enforce a subpoena issued in March 2022 that would compel Covington to provide the names of the affected clients. Covington’s representative lawyer has preliminarily invoked attorney-client privileges as a defensive strategy. [1] SEC’s order to enforce the subpoena for disclosure of the clients’ names is not entirely consistent with precedent. Furthermore, Covington & Burling’s wide variety of legal strategies, mostly predicated on the attorney-client privileges established by the Sixth Amendment and other related cases and legal frameworks, are highly capable of shielding them from this intrusive and overreaching lawsuit.
Read More
With the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s revocation of the decision in the six-year-long case Caltech v. Apple and Broadcom (2022), Apple has been relieved of paying $1.1 billion in damage-based compensation demanded by Caltech, due to alleged infringement on the ‘710 and ‘032 patents held by the latter institution. [1] Given this was the highest patent-related damage amount demanded to date, there is perhaps no better time to highlight the financially exorbitant and highly exploitable nature of the patent law industry. [2] Given that universities attain about three thousand patents a year from either funding research or venture capital investment funds, this issue is only growing in prominence. [3] The denial of Caltech’s “two-tiered damage” theory garners support for a more careful revision of current patent law, specifically its overly-broad interpretation, that maintains its ability to promote innovation and better integrate technology.
Read More
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ripple—a current case regarding the legal status of cryptocurrency—could be taken to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (if not the Supreme Court) and set a precedent for the amount of jurisdiction that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) holds over future cryptocurrency transactions. [1] Because this case could designate a new legal “guardian” for cryptocurrency, it has generated significant interest within the cryptocurrency community. [2] However, an evaluation of cryptocurrency against the standards established in the 1946 Supreme Court case Securities and Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. points to an ambiguous legal future for cryptocurrency. XRP, the cryptocurrency at issue in Ripple, appears more likely to satisfy the Howey test due to the centrality in its distribution and its exhibition of vertical and horizontal commonality. Thus, despite the furor regarding this case, the final decision in Ripple may not constitute a conclusive legal determination for all cryptocurrencies.
Read More
Following a series of state-led cases against technocratic giants, Ohio attorney general David Yost attempted another path to regulation through a 2021 lawsuit demanding that Google be declared a public utility and Google Search become a public utility in the state of Ohio. Such a lawsuit, if successful, would subsequently place Google under the supervision of the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (PUCO). Public utilities are generally defined as private and public entities that provide essential service to the public, most often in association with energy and telecommunication establishments.
Read More