Here is a report on recent news and commentary related to the Federal Circuit and its cases. Today we highlight:
- an article suggesting a recent Supreme Court decision could “signal that the Court may rule against the administration in the Trump tariff cases”;
- an article analyzing how in President Trump’s tariff case the Supreme Court “has to navigate a direct clash between two constitutional values: the Hamiltonian imperative for executive agility in responding to complex, multi-vector hybrid, or irregular threats, and the Madisonian commitment to decentralized power and legislative oversight in the regulation of commerce”;
- an article reporting how “[a]n attorney for Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman said . . . the 98-year-old judge plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the full D.C. Circuit refused to reconsider a decision affirming the dismissal of her lawsuit challenging her suspension”; and
- a blog post commenting on the oral argument in “a long-running challenge to the USPTO’s Fintiv discretionary denial framework.”
Alan Wolff authored an article for the Peterson Institute for International Economics suggesting a recent Supreme Court decision could “signal that the Court may rule against the administration in the Trump tariff cases.” Wolff explains how, recently the Supreme Court “made a procedural ruling that prevented the Trump administration from deploying Illinois National Guard troops in Chicago” because the Court concluded that the government failed to satisfy the statutory requirement to invoke the law. Wolff suggests “there are a few striking parallels in the two sets of facts and perhaps some similarities in the reasoning” in both that case and the tariff cases. For more information on the tariff cases, check out the case page in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc.
Paul Sracic wrote an article for the Hudson Institute analyzing how in President Trump’s tariff case the Supreme Court “has to navigate a direct clash between two constitutional values: the Hamiltonian imperative for executive agility in responding to complex, multi-vector hybrid, or irregular threats, and the Madisonian commitment to decentralized power and legislative oversight in the regulation of commerce.” Sracic suggests that, “[w]hile the justices recognize the horror of the fentanyl epidemic and the strategic peril of trade deficits, the skepticism from both the conservative and liberal wings suggests a reluctance to abandon the structural safeguards” provided in the Supreme Court’s precedent. Again, for more information on this case, check out the relevant case page.
Ryan Davis authored an article for Law360 reporting how “[a]n attorney for Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman said . . . the 98-year-old judge plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court after the full D.C. Circuit refused to reconsider a decision affirming the dismissal of her lawsuit challenging her suspension.” Davis explains how the “D.C. Circuit denied Judge Newman’s request for en banc rehearing” on December 29.
Dennis Crouch penned a blog post for PatentlyO commenting on the oral argument in “a long-running challenge to the USPTO’s Fintiv discretionary denial framework.” Crouch explains how “Apple, Cisco, Google, and Intel argue that the NHK-Fintiv rule should have been adopted through notice-and-comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rather than through precedential Board designations.” Crouch suggests the “broadest version of the government’s argument would hold that precedential Board decisions can never constitute substantive rules requiring notice-and-comment because the Director always retains authority to review and reverse Board decisions.” Crouch suggests, however, that the “Federal Circuit should be cautious about adopting reasoning that would extend so broadly.” For more information on the case, check out our case page in Apple Inc. v. Squires and our argument recap.