Last Month at the Supreme Court | October 2024 Term Conclusion: Part II

As the October 2024 Term drew to a close, the Supreme Court issued several landmark decisions that reshaped core doctrines in administrative law, standing, remedies, and constitutional structure. This second installment of our final edition of the October 2024 Term highlights the Court’s most consequential business rulings. From the limits of judicial power to the reach of federal regulation, these decisions carry significant implications for litigants, agencies, and regulated industries alike:

• Trump v. CASA, Inc.: The Court held 6-3 that federal district courts lack the authority to issue universal (nationwide) injunctions, finding such remedies inconsistent with the Judiciary Act of 1789 and traditional equitable practice.
• FCC v. Consumers’ Research: In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld the FCC’s Universal Service Program, rejecting a nondelegation challenge and ruling that Congress provided an intelligible principle for administering the fund.
• Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA: The Court ruled 7-2 that fuel producers had standing to challenge the EPA’s approval of California’s zero-emissions vehicle regulations, relying on “commonsense economic realities” to establish redressability.
• Oklahoma v. the EPA / PacifiCorp v. the EPA: The Court held 6-2 that EPA’s disapproval of individual state air quality plans must be challenged in regional circuit courts, not the D.C. Circuit, emphasizing that the substance—not the publication format—determines venue.
• Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co.: In a 7-2 decision, the Court found that vape retailers are “adversely affected” under the Tobacco Control Act and therefore have standing to petition for judicial review in their home circuit.
• BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman: The Court unanimously reaffirmed the high threshold for reopening final judgments under Rule 60(b)(6), emphasizing that amendment requests after judgment must meet the “extraordinary circumstances” standard before Rule 15(a) considerations can apply.
• Trump v. American Federation of Government Employees: The Court stayed the nationwide injunction blocking the government from carrying out President Trump’s executive order to reign in the federal government’s size through large-scale workforce reductions.

For further information, please contact Chantel Febus, James Azadian, Mark Magyar, Kyle Asher, Christopher Sakauye, Monika Harris, or Ryan VanOver.

---

Acknowledgment

We extend our sincere thanks to our 2025 summer associates—Sasha Codiga, Karli Hiltner, Haley Marion, Danielle Shedd Reed, Richard “Tres” Lyons, Ana Avendano Martinez, and Mitchell Brost—whose research and writing contributed meaningfully to the summer editions.  Their work exemplifies the rigor and professionalism that define our appellate practice.

---

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Retailers’ Right To Judicial Review Under The Tobacco Control Act

The Supreme Court held in Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. that retailers of e-cigarette products are “persons adversely affected” by an FDA denial order under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA), and therefore have standing to seek judicial review. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Venue for Environmental Challenges

In a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held in consolidated cases Oklahoma v. EPA and PacifiCorp v. EPA that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s disapprovals of 21 individual state implementation plans (SIPs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) are “locally or regionally applicable” actions, and, as such, must be challenged in their respective regional circuit courts—even when the EPA publishes them in a single, consolidated Federal Register notice. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Rule 60(b)’s High Bar to Reopen Final Judgments

In a unanimous and notable decision, the Supreme Court in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman reaffirmed the strict threshold imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), holding that a party may not evade its “extraordinary circumstances” requirement simply by seeking to amend a complaint post-judgment. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas rejected the Second Circuit’s attempt to harmonize Rule 60’s demand for finality with Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: The Supreme Court Holds That Fuel Producers Have Standing to Sue EPA

The Supreme Court held 7-2 in Diamond Alternative Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency that fuel producers have standing to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s approval of California’s vehicle emission regulations. Justice Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson filed separate dissents. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rejects Nondelegation Challenge to FCC’s Universal Service Program

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)’s Universal Service Program (USP) does not violate the nondelegation doctrine. Justice Kagan wrote the majority opinion in FCC v. Consumers’ Research and Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition v. Consumers’ Research, with Justices Kavanaugh and Jackson filing separate concurrences. Justice Gorsuch dissented, joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules District Courts Lack Power to Issue Universal Injunctions

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal district courts lack authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal (or nationwide) injunctions. Justice Barrett wrote the Court’s opinion, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh filed separate concurrences. Justice Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. Justice Jackson also authored a separate dissent. Read the full synopsis here.

Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clears the Way for Executive Control

A divided Ninth Circuit panel declined to push the pause button on a San Francisco-based district court’s nationwide injunction blocking the government from carrying out President Trump’s executive order aimed to reign in the size of the federal government through large-scale reductions in its workforce, with special focus on those federal agency “offices that perform functions not mandated by statute or other law.” A coalition of unions, nonprofits, and local governments brought the lawsuit to challenge the president’s authority to reorganize the agencies, absent congressional approval. Undeterred, the government promptly applied to the Supreme Court to freeze the injunction while its appeal before the Ninth Circuit moves forward. In arguing for the emergency relief, Solicitor General D. John Sauer called the district court’s order “flawed” and resting on an “indefensible premise” that the president needs authorization from Congress to oversee personnel decisions within the Executive Branch. In an unsigned, one-page order issued July 8, the Supreme Court seemingly had no difficulty staying the injunction, reasoning that “the Government is likely to succeed on its argument that the Executive Order… [is] lawful.” Read the full synopsis here.