Publications

Supreme Court Update: Decisions from 2009

09.01.09

While business cases perhaps do not typify the popular culture wardu jour, they are no less significant. As one commentator noted in a 2008 analysis of the Court's recent opinions,

Business cases at the Supreme Court typically receive less attention than cases concerning issues like affirmative action, abortion or the death penalty. The disputes tend to be harder to follow: the legal arguments are more technical, the underlying stories less emotional. But these cases — which include shareholder suits, antitrust challenges to corporate mergers, patent disputes and efforts to reduce punitive-damage awards and prevent product-liability suits — are no less important. They involve billions of dollars, have huge consequences for the economy and can have a greater effect on people's daily lives than the often symbolic battles of the culture wars.

– Jeffrey Rose, Supreme Court Inc., N.Y. TIMES MAG. (March 16, 2008).

A few recent and select culture-war cases aside, the Roberts Court has been widely heralded as business-friendly. See, e.g., Tony Mauro, Supreme Court Continues Pro-Business Stance, LEGAL TIMES (Feb. 21, 2008); Greg Stohr, Alito Champions Business Causes in First Full High-Court Term, BLOOMBERG (June 26, 2007) (referring to the 2006-07 Supreme Court term as "what may have been the most pro-business U.S. Supreme Court term in decades"); Robert Barnes & Carrie Johnson, Pro-Business Decision Hews to Pattern of Roberts Court, WASH. POST (June 22, 2007) (describing a case as another "victory for business in what has been a resoundingly successful year before the nation's highest court"). Observers have noted, for example, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's impressive success at the Court in recent years through direct litigation andamicusfilings. See, e.g., David L. Franklin, What Kind of Business-Friendly Court? Explaining the Chamber of Commerce's Success at the Roberts Court, 49 SANTA CLARA L. REV. 1019 (2009) (arguing that the Court's recent decisions are less about "pro-business" or "pro-defendant" jurisprudence, and more about "a broadly shared skepticism among the justices about litigation as a mode of regulation").

With a few important exceptions — most notably preemption — the Court's most recent term (which wrapped up in June) confirmed this view with a series of pro-business decisions in the areas of antitrust, pleading standards, arbitration and discrimination.

To read the full article, see Business Law Today, Vol. 19, No. 1, September/October 2009, American Bar Association©

The publications contained in this site do not constitute legal advice. Legal advice can only be given with knowledge of the client's specific facts. By putting these publications on our website we do not intend to create a lawyer-client relationship with the user. Materials may not reflect the most current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. This information should in no way be taken as an indication of future results.

Search Tips:

You may use the wildcard symbol (*) as a root expander.  A search for "anti*" will find not only "anti", but also "anti-trust", "antique", etc.

Entering two terms together in a search field will behave as though an "OR" is being used.  For example, entering "Antique Motorcars" as a Client Name search will find results with either word in the Client Name.

Operators

AND and OR may be used in a search.  Note: they must be capitalized, e.g., "Project AND Finance." 

The + and - sign operators may be used.  The + sign indicates that the term immediately following is required, while the - sign indicates to omit results that contain that term. E.g., "+real -estate" says results must have "real" but not "estate".

To perform an exact phrase search, surround your search phrase with quotation marks.  For example, "Project Finance".

Searches are not case sensitive.

back to top