The Supreme Court held today that constitutional challenges to administrative agencies’ structure can be brought in federal district court and need not be raised through an administrative proceeding with subsequent appellate review. The decision in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission (U.S. Apr. 14, 2023) – which involved challenges to two federal agencies’ use of Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) for enforcement proceedings – considered only the issue of where such challenges can be brought. The Court did not address substantive questions about whether the ALJ process or the agency structure itself is constitutional – hot topics that could come before the Court in other matters.
Antitrust
International Comity and Deference: A Foreign Government with Final Say When Interpreting its Own Laws
By Mee (Rina) Kim & Rachel Wolkinson on
On Tuesday, the Second Circuit in In Re Vitamin C Antitrust Litigation vacated a $147 million award against two Chinese companies for engaging in anti-competitive behavior. At issue was how a federal court should respond when a foreign government’s regulatory scheme conflicts with U.S. laws. Because the Chinese companies could not simultaneously comply with Chinese law and U.S. antitrust laws, the principles of international comity required the district court to abstain from exercising jurisdiction in the case. As a result, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the Chinese companies’ motion to dismiss and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. In re Vitamin C Antitrust Litig., No. 13-4791 (2d Cir. Sept. 20, 2016).
Investors Fight Back – Court Battle Could Determine Scope of HSR Act Exemption
When an enforcement action for a violation of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act is announced, chances are the matter has already come to a close – by the time the action becomes public, the agency and the parties usually have agreed upon financial penalties and other sanctions to be levied. But that is not the case for ValueAct Capital and its affiliated investment funds. After the Department of Justice filed a complaint against ValueAct on April 4, the company did not take the allegations lying down. Instead, it vowed to vigorously defend its position.