The Supreme Court held that retailers who would sell a new tobacco product if not for the FDA's denial order may seek judicial review of that order under 21 U.S.C. §387l(a)(1). The Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's denial of the FDA's motion to dismiss or transfer the case for lack of venue, finding that retailers are "adversely affected" by a denial order and are therefore proper petitioners under the statute.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The law often draws fine lines that can mean the difference between freedom and prison, and the Supreme Court just drew one of those lines in a case called Esteras versus United States. The ruling doesn't create technical traps for judges but ensures they apply the law as Congress intended, with appropriate review by appellate courts when mistakes occur.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The heart of this decision turns on a fine line in federal drug rules—does simply handing out samples count as selling drugs to a non-patient? A group of chiropractors, who received free medicine samples to give directly to their patients, said “no.” The FDA’s rule says drug distributors must register and meet certain safety steps if they sell to anyone other than the patient. But these clinics never bought or sold the drugs at all. They only received samples from drug companies.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

In a close look at how the Clean Air Act treats pollution from burning plants and trees, the court decided whether the government can treat those emissions differently from the smokestacks of a coal plant. The current legal debate centers on whether invalidating California's waiver would actually change automakers' manufacturing decisions enough to help fuel producers—a question that isn't clearly addressed in the Clean Air Act itself but has significant implications for who can challenge these environmental regulations in court.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

In this case, the city had a rule that street performers needed a permit. But it turned out that some acts got fast-tracked permits while others were put on a waiting list. The Supreme Court said that kind of unequal treatment raises a red flag under the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

The Supreme Court held that a federal court may authorize substitute service of process by mail and email on the PLO’s U.S. representative under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act when ordinary methods fail.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

Here’s the twist in the law: if you never joined the conversation when a federal agency made its decision, you can’t show up later in court to complain. In this case, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved a plan to store spent nuclear fuel in West Texas. The state of Texas and a landowner group weren’t in the room when that license was granted, so the Supreme Court said they have no right to challenge it now. By reversing the lower court, the Justices kept the license in place but left a big question open—did the agency even have the power to issue that permit in the first place?

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras

EPA’s denials of small refinery exemption petitions from Clean Air Act renewable fuel requirements are locally or regionally applicable actions that fall within the "nationwide scope or effect" exception, requiring venue in the D.C. Circuit rather than regional circuits. The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit's decision and remanded the case.

music for the podcast provided by ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Dimitry Taras