The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has denied a petition seeking review of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding a California law prohibiting the sale of commodities, such as foie gras, produced by “force feeding a bird for the purpose of enlarging the bird’s liver beyond normal size.” Association des Éleveurs de Canards et d’Oies du Québec v. Harris, No. 13-1313 (U.S., certiorari denied October 14, 2014). Details about the Ninth Circuit decision appear in Issue 497 of this Update. Among other matters, the Ninth Circuit had found that a number of the issues presented by the plaintiffs were premature because they had appealed the denial of a motion for preliminary injunction. The question that out-of-state fois gras producers presented to SCOTUS was “[w]hether the Commerce Clause allows California to impose a complete ban on the sale of wholesome, USDA-approved poultry products from other States and countries—in this case, foie…
Category Archives U.S. Supreme Court
In a petition for a writ of certiorari, plaintiffs alleging harm by exposure to the flavoring agent diacetyl have argued that the Third Circuit erred in ruling that Aaroma Holdings cannot be held liable for the actions of diacetyl producer Emoral Inc., which Aaroma purchased following the alleged exposures. Diacetyl Plaintiffs v. Aaroma Holdings, No. 14-71 (U.S., petition for writ of certiorari filed July 18, 2014). The terms of the 2010 purchase agreement confirming Aaroma’s acquisition of Emoral apparently noted that Emoral may be subject to diacetyl litigation and stated that Aaroma did not assume liability for any future claims. Emoral filed for bankruptcy protection in 2011, and the bankruptcy trustee reportedly released Aaroma from future diacetyl causes of action against Emoral in exchange for $500,000. In addition to accusing the Third Circuit of diverging from binding precedent on injured creditors’ claims, the plaintiffs’ petition argues that the decision is contrary…
Briefing has been completed before the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on a petition seeking review of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling upholding California’s prohibition on the sale of food produced by force feeding birds to enlarge the liver beyond normal size. Association des Éleveur de Canards des d’Oies du Québec v. Harris, No. 13-1313 (U.S., distributed for Sept. 29, 2014, conference on July 16). Additional details about the Ninth Circuit’s ruling appear in Issue 497 of this Update. Joining the Canadian and New York foie gras producers that filed the certiorari petition are the attorneys general (AGs) of 13 states. Their amici curiae brief claims that the petition presents an issue of “exceptional importance to the preservation of state sovereignty,” namely, that the lower court’s decision “allows the states to engage in economic isolationism, set themselves against one another, and balkanize the nation, thus giving rise to trade wars…
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court has determined that the Ninth Circuit erred by failing to consider the unconstitutional takings defense raised by raisin growers who were subject to penalties and assessments for failure to pay assessments and set aside reserve-tonnage raisins under a Depression-era program intended to stabilize prices for agricultural commodities by limiting their quantity in the domestic competitive market. Horne v. USDA, No. 12-123 (U.S., decided June 10, 2013). Pursuant to the Tucker Act, claims “for just compensation under the Takings Clause must be brought to the Court of Federal Claims in the first instance, unless Congress has withdrawn the Tucker Act grant of jurisdiction in the relevant statute.” The Court found that the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act (AMAA) of 1937 displaces Tucker Act jurisdiction and, because the raisin growers had no alternative remedy, “their takings claim was not ‘premature’ when presented to the Ninth Circuit.” The Court…
The U.S. Supreme Court has denied the request to review a Washington appeals court dismissal of claims filed by a man who alleged that contaminated pet food caused his cat’s death. Earl v. Menu Foods Income Fund, Inc., No. 12-1083 (U.S., cert. denied May 13, 2013). According to a news source, the defendant had recalled some of its pet foods due to melamine contamination, but the plaintiff apparently failed to produce admissible evidence that those foods were implicated in his pet’s death. In its opposition to the plaintiff’s petition to the Court, Menu Foods reportedly stated that no federal question was presented. Rather, at issue was whether state law on the preservation and destruction of evidence had been properly applied. See Bloomberg BNA Product Safety & Liability Reporter, May 13, 2013.
David Egilman, whose expert testimony was deemed inadmissible in proceedings involving a consumer’s exposure to the butter-flavoring chemical diacetyl in microwave popcorn, has filed a petition for writ of certiorari (No. 12-697) in the U.S. Supreme Court. He asks, “Whether a nonparty to a district court proceeding has a right to appeal a decision that adversely affects his interest, as the Second, Sixth, and D.C. Circuits hold, or whether, as six other circuit courts hold, the nonparty must intervene or otherwise participate in the district court proceedings to have a right to appeal.” He was apparently retained by a couple seeking to recover for the lung injury sustained by the husband, but the district court found his testimony inadmissible and granted summary judgment for the manufacturers. According to Egilman’s petition, the district court did not confine itself to a traditional reliability inquiry, but “attacked the character and professionalism of the expert…
Indiana farmer Vernon Bowman claims in his U.S. Supreme Court merits brief that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled that he infringed patents by planting second-generation genetically modified (GM) seeds, has “significantly curtailed the patent-exhaustion defense” by refusing to “hold Monsanto’s patent rights exhausted with respect to the seeds Bowman purchased from [a] grain elevator.” Bowman v. Monsanto Co., No. 11-796 (U.S., petitioner’s brief filed December 3, 2012). The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review whether “the Federal Circuit erred by (1) refusing to find patent exhaustion in patented seeds even after an authorized sale, and by (2) creating an exception to the doctrine of patent exhaustion for self-replicating technologies.” Additional information about the dispute appears in Issue 434 of this Update. The allegedly infringing seeds that Bowman planted as a second crop were purchased in a commodity grain mix from a grain elevator. Such mixes can, according to…
The owners of a Yuma, Arizona-based dairy have filed a petition for review before the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking a hearing on their challenge to the Milk Regulatory Equity Act of 2005, which apparently requires independent producer-handlers to join a dairy cooperative or pay federal marketing fees. Hettinga v. United States, No. 12-506 (U.S., petition for writ of certiorari filed October 19, 2012). According to the Hettingas, one of the few remaining independents in the United States, lawmakers singled out their dairy when enacting a law that has forced them to sell milk at a higher price than they want to charge. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the law did not constitute a bill of attainder nor did it violate the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses. Hettinga v. United States, No. 11-5065 (D.C. Cir., decided April 13, 2012).
On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an order which reinstates a district court ruling that a California law regulating swine slaughterhouses and nonambulatory animals was preempted by federal law. Nat’l Meat Ass’n v. Harris, Nos. 09-15483 and -15486 (9th Cir., order entered June 8, 2012). Additional details about the case and the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling appear in Issue 424 of this Update.
The U.S. Supreme Court has invited the U.S. solicitor general to submit a brief addressing the issues raised in a dispute over patent exhaustion and second-generation genetically modified (GM) seeds. Bowman v. Monsanto Co., No. 11-796 (U.S., order entered April 2, 2012). An Indiana farmer, who was found to have infringed Monsanto’s patents by planting the Roundup Ready® soybeans he purchased from a grain elevator, filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that when the company sold its patented seeds to a different farmer, who later sold the soybeans to the grain elevator, it exhausted its rights to that seed and all of its descendants. He was not required to sign a licensing agreement before buying “commodity” soybeans and thus claims that he was free to plant them and then save and replant each crop in future seasons. Monsanto reportedly contends that each generation is a separate product and that the…
