The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of the In re Bystolic antitrust lawsuit! NCLA supported this outcome in its amicus brief, while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) supported the plaintiffs despite not filing suit. NCLA argued that plaintiffs must show a large net payment, not just a large gross payment, to prove antitrust violations. The Second Circuit ruled that plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim. NCLA and the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) applaud this decision!

Mark and Vec discuss and celebrate the victory in this latest episode. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal of the In re Bystolic antitrust lawsuit! NCLA supported this outcome in its amicus brief, while the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) supported the plaintiffs despite not filing suit. NCLA argued that plaintiffs must show a large net payment, not just a large gross payment, to prove antitrust violations. The Second Circuit ruled that plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim. NCLA and the International Center for Law and Economics (ICLE) applaud this decision! Mark and Vec discuss and celebrate the victory in this latest episode.

Administrative Static is an irreverent legal affairs podcast that exposes the unlawful side of administrative power. Hosts Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione will decry federal and state agency abuses, trot out legal arguments, grill expert guests, and bandy about the latest cases and controversies. 

Administrative Static is an irreverent legal affairs podcast that exposes the unlawful side of administrative power. Hosts Mark Chenoweth and John Vecchione will decry federal and state agency abuses, trot out legal arguments, grill expert guests, and bandy about the latest cases and controversies.&nbsp;

Administrative Static Podcast

Administrative Static

In NCLA Amicus Win, and FTC Amicus Loss, Second Circuit Upholds Decision Dismissing Antitrust Suit

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has reversed a district court decision in Johnson v. Smith that upheld a Kansas state law authorizing intrusive warrantless searches for dog training and handling businesses.

NCLA filed an amicus curiaebrief explaining that the warrantless-search law infringes the Appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” While the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Appellants’ claim that the state law violates their right to travel, it remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the Fourth Amendment authorizes warrantless searches of dog training and handling businesses—the issue we briefed.

In this episode, Mark and John celebrate the win and discuss the case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has <a href="https://nclalegal.org/filing/decision-of-the-u-s-court-of-appeals-for-the-tenth-circuit/">reversed</a> a district court decision in Johnson v. Smith that upheld a Kansas state law authorizing intrusive warrantless searches for dog training and handling businesses.
NCLA filed an amicus curiae <a href="https://nclalegal.org/filing/ncla-amicus-curiae-brief-in-support-of-appellants/">brief</a> explaining that the warrantless-search law infringes the Appellants’ Fourth Amendment rights “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” While the Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Appellants’ claim that the state law violates their right to travel, it remanded the case to the lower court to determine whether the Fourth Amendment authorizes warrantless searches of dog training and handling businesses—the issue we briefed.
In this episode, Mark and John celebrate the win and discuss the case

Tenth Circuit Clears Path to Toppling Intrusive Dog Kennel Inspection Regime

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 decision in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, overturning a deferential legal standard that has allowed the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to enjoin a company’s conduct without showing that it likely broke the law.

Justice Thomas authored the Court’s opinion. Justice Jackson provided a ninth vote, concurring in the judgment, but dissenting in part at a length greater than the majority decision. The Court held that federal courts may not issue preliminary injunctions unless the NLRB meets four requirements: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it would suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) the balance of equities favors an injunction; and (4) an injunction serves the public interest. 

Today’s decision overrules the five federal circuits that have been applying a relaxed standard when NLRB seeks a preliminary injunction, permitting it to punish an employer based on legal and factual allegations that are most likely meritless. In this episode, Mark, John, and Jenin discuss celebrate the victory and discuss the case. 

The U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-1 <a href="https://nclalegal.org/filing/decision-of-the-u-s-supreme-court-6/">decision</a> in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, overturning a deferential legal standard that has allowed the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to enjoin a company’s conduct without showing that it likely broke the law.
Justice Thomas authored the Court’s opinion. Justice Jackson provided a ninth vote, concurring in the judgment, but dissenting in part at a length greater than the majority decision. The Court held that federal courts may not issue preliminary injunctions unless the NLRB meets four requirements: (1) it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) it would suffer irreparable injury absent an injunction; (3) the balance of equities favors an injunction; and (4) an injunction serves the public interest. 
Today’s decision overrules the five federal circuits that have been applying a relaxed standard when NLRB seeks a preliminary injunction, permitting it to punish an employer based on legal and factual allegations that are most likely meritless. In this episode, Mark, John, and Jenin discuss celebrate the victory and discuss the case.

Supreme Court Overturns NLRB-Specific Preliminary Injunction Standard

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled 6-3 in the NCLA case of Garland v. Cargill that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban conflicts with the federal statute defining “machineguns.”

ATF’s regulatory ban, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit shot down early last year, reversed the agency’s own long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are not machine guns.

NCLA commends the high court for permanently setting ATF’s ban aside, safeguarding the rights of our client Michael Cargill and hundreds of thousands of other Americans to be free from laws written by executive branch bureaucrats instead of elected members of Congress.

Mark, John, and Jenin celebrate this victory and dive into the case and the meaning of "machineguns" in this latest episode.

The U.S. Supreme Court has <a href="https://nclalegal.org/filing/decision-of-the-u-s-supreme-court-7/">ruled</a> 6-3 in the NCLA case of Garland v. Cargill that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ unilateral bump-stock ban conflicts with the federal statute defining “machineguns.”
ATF’s regulatory ban, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit shot down early last year, reversed the agency’s own long-standing recognition that bump-stock-equipped firearms are not machine guns.
NCLA commends the high court for permanently setting ATF’s ban aside, safeguarding the rights of our client Michael Cargill and hundreds of thousands of other Americans to be free from laws written by executive branch bureaucrats instead of elected members of Congress.
Mark, John, and Jenin celebrate this victory and dive into the case and the meaning of "machineguns" in this latest episode.

In NCLA Amicus Win, and FTC Amicus Loss, Second Circuit Upholds Decision Dismissing Antitrust Suit

In 1 playlist(s)

Administrative Static

Follow podcast

Recent clips