If your business sells or distributes products or devices by claiming that the products work against or kill COVID-19, beware that such claims are subject to regulatory oversight by a variety of governmental agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Trade Commission, and the Food & Drug Administration. Unsuspecting companies in the sale and distribution of these products, such as disinfectants, sanitizers, or cleaners, must ensure their labels and marketing claims satisfy regulatory requirements.
On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, holding that EPA unreasonably interpreted a provision of the Clean Air Act regarding the regulation of power plants under the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) (also referred to as the Utility MACT).
Lone Pine orders have become an increasingly common case management tool employed by trial courts to help streamline proceedings for defendants and the court while maintaining equity for the plaintiffs. Lone Pine orders are most often used in cases involving complex issues and multiple plaintiffs, but are becoming more widely employed in a greater variety of cases.
On April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit gave a northwestern Minnesota peat mining operation something the company wanted very much — judicial review of a wetlands jurisdictional decision issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hawkes Co., Inc., et. al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, slip op. No. 13-3067 (8th Cir. April 10, 2015). In so doing, the Eighth Circuit built on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012), which had made Clean Water Act administrative orders subject to court scrutiny, and continued the Eighth Circuit’s focus on curtailing what it sees as government agency overreaching, as recently expressed in Iowa League of Cities v. EPA, 711 F.3d 844, 868 (8th Cir. 2013).
Earlier today, June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court handed down its decision in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, et al., slip op. No. 13–339 (U.S., 6-9-2014). Reversing the Fourth Circuit, the Supreme Court held that the Superfund law’s preemption of state statutes of limitation for personal injury or property damage claims does not apply to state statutes of repose. Not every state has such a statute on the books, but for those that do, this may provide an additional shield for defendants, and an additional hurdle for plaintiffs.