Petitions / Supreme Court Activity

Here is an update on recent activity at the Supreme Court in cases decided by the Federal Circuit. With respect to granted cases, there is no new activity to report since our last update. While no new petitions were filed with the Court, waivers of right to respond were filed in a patent case and a pro se case, a brief in opposition was filed in a trade case presenting questions related to separation of powers and steel tariffs, and three amicus briefs were filed in a veterans case. Here are the details.

Granted Cases

There is no new activity to report.

Petition Cases

Waivers of Right to Respond

Elysium Health waived its right to respond in ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., a patent case asking the Court to review the following question:

  • “Whether the two-step Alice/Mayo framework governs the eligibility of patents allegedly directed to natural phenomena.”

In addition, the government waived its right to respond in Chae v. Yellen, a pro se case.

Brief in Opposition

In PrimeSource Building Products, Inc. v. United States, the government filed its brief in opposition to the petition, which presented the following questions:

  1. “Whether separation of powers principles require courts to resolve ambiguity in statutory limits on delegations of vast legislative power to the Executive in a way that constrains the delegation or, as the Federal Circuit holds, courts must uphold the President’s actions absent ‘a clear misconstruction of the governing statute.’”
  2. “Whether, under the proper standard of review, the Trade Expansion Act of 1968 permitted the President to impose tariffs on steel derivatives without complying with the statute’s procedural prerequisites.”

In its brief, the government, citing 19 U.S.C. § 1862(c)(1)(A)(ii), contends “Section 232 [of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962] establishes a procedure through which the President may ‘adjust the imports’ of an article in order to protect ‘national security.’” Turning to PrimeSource’s separation of powers claim, the government contends the Supreme Court previously rejected an argument for a narrow interpretation of Section 232 “in order to avoid a violation of the nondelegation doctrine.” The government argues that PrimeSource “has not identified . . . justification for revisiting” the Court’s prior “constitutional holding that Section 232 complies with Article I, or its statutory-interpretation holding that a court need not ‘construe [Section 232] narrowly in order to avoid’ nondelegation issues.”

Amicus Briefs

Three amicus briefs were filed in Van Dermark v. McDonough, a veterans case asking the Court to consider “whether eligible veterans are entitled to reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs incurred while receiving emergency treatment abroad based on the specific commands in 38 U.S.C. §§ 1728 & 1725.” All of the amicus briefs support the petitioners:

  • Betty and Michael D. Wohl Veterans Legal Clinic at Syracuse University College of Law filed an amicus brief;
  • Veterans’ Advocacy Law Clinic filed an amicus brief; and
  • Military-Veterans Advocacy, Jewish War Veterans of the U.S.A., National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Rocky Mountain Veterans Advocacy Project, Service Women’s Action Network, and Veterans Legal Services filed an amicus brief.