Analysis: In shadow of landmark decisions, U.S. high court also rules for business

WASHINGTON Fri Jun 28, 2013 1:07am EDT

People walk in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, March 24, 2013. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

People walk in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington, March 24, 2013.

Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Less noticed in a flurry of high-profile rulings on race, voting rights and gay marriage was how the U.S. Supreme Court rounded off its term by delivering a string of victories to businesses and employers.

Just this week, the court handed wins to generic drug manufacturers facing design-defect lawsuits, employers battling harassment and retaliation claims and landowners struggling to obtain permits for construction projects. In all four cases, the court was split 5-4 with the conservatives in the majority.

Overall, during the term that started nine months ago, the Supreme Court has delivered a series of victories for corporate defendants on class action lawsuits and arbitration, curbing the ability of consumers to file mass claims against companies over such matters as defective products and unfair practices. Comcast Corp (CMCSA.O) and American Express Co (AXP.N) were among the big winners in those cases.

As progressive groups have been quick to point out, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the main group representing business interests, received a favorable outcome in 14 of the 18 cases in which it filed friend-of-the-court briefs.

The court's business rulings represent "troubling trends that reach back a decade or more, with the court's conservative majority making it harder for consumers, workers and small businesses to go to federal court and hold large corporations accountable," said Doug Kendall, president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, a progressive legal group.

Kate Comerford Todd, chief counsel for appellate litigation at the Chamber's litigation arm, brushed aside suggestions that the court - led since 2005 by Chief Justice John Roberts, an appointee of Republican President George W. Bush - was overly friendly to business.

Citing a popular view within the business community, she said the court was merely reining in the plaintiffs' lawyers who can make millions of dollars in a single case representing multiple plaintiffs in suits against corporate defendants.

"We see a court that has in recent years beaten back the plaintiffs' bar's aggressive campaign to contort the rules and law to serve their purposes," she said.


As is normal for the court in its final week, it issued rulings in some of its most divided cases.

On Monday it issued two rulings that limited the ability of employees to make harassment or retaliation claims against employers under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The court ruled against an African-American Ball State University catering assistant who claimed she was harassed on the basis of race and a University of Texas doctor of Middle Eastern descent who claimed he lost his job in retaliation for complaining of bias.

The rulings prompted liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to call out the majority in a statement from the bench, saying they had "corralled" Title VII.

The Chamber of Commerce filed briefs in both cases in support of the employer. Todd said the rulings simply set clearer rules for employers and employees alike.

"The court's Title VII cases this week provide much needed clarity," she added.

On the same day as the employment decisions, the court also issued its ruling on whether generic drug makers could be sued under state law for design defects in medications that already have been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Justice Samuel Alito wrote on behalf of the majority that although the case "arises out of tragic circumstances," the lawsuit was blocked as a result of the FDA's approval of the drug and the warnings that accompanied its sale. The ruling was a "straightforward application" of federal law, he said.


Perhaps the least-noticed, most significant case - and thus branded by some as the term's biggest "sleeper" - was Tuesday's ruling on land-use permit applications.

Ruling in favor of a Florida landowner, Coy Koontz, the court expanded the ability of property owners to challenge permit conditions imposed upon them by government land-use agencies.

Under Supreme Court precedent, government agencies have always had to provide a justification to impose conditions, but the court expanded the limitations on such requests by saying that legal review can be triggered even if officials deny a permit application and in instances in which the only condition is a money payment.

Alito again wrote for the majority, making note of the "special vulnerability of land-use permit applicants to extortionate demands for money" from government agencies.

Close observers of land-use law say the decision could limit the ability of government entities to require developers to pay for the environmental impact of a project.

Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, said the ruling requires regulators "to justify the burdens they would impose," which he believes encourages accountability.

The Chamber of Commerce filed briefs in the permit application case in support of the property owner and the generic drug case in favor of the drug maker.

Scott Nelson, a lawyer with the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said he was wary of attributing too much to the chamber's winning record.

"It's not a situation where there's a majority that sits down and looks to see if the Chamber of Commerce files a brief and this is the way we should vote," he said.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller and Christopher Wilson)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (10)
And you people think it’s the President’s fault….lol

Wake Up America, lifetime appointments don’t work..

2 from Reagan
2 from George W Bush
2 from Clinton
2 from Obama
1 from George H.W. Bush

Most of these cases were decide 5-4….see the trend now? And ask yourself this, should a President have the power to push his parties agenda(s) with these appointments, even after 20+ years?

You want term limits in Congress, you need term limits here ass well.

Jun 28, 2013 9:27am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Lloyd_L wrote:
I can’t speak for the other cases cited in this article, but while the Koontz case was a welcome relief for property rights supporters, it was not a big surprise.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that there must be an “essential nexus” between the impact a project has and the conditions placed on it by the permitting governmental agency. Beyond that, government demands become a taking for which the property owner must be compensated;

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
Dolan v. City of Tigard

Unfortunately, government agencies, even after Nollan and Dolan, continue to attempt to bully property owners;
Charlie Johnson & family v. E.P.A.
Sackett V. E.P.A.
Altman and Atid v. California Coastal Commission

Jun 28, 2013 9:36am EDT  --  Report as abuse
ronryegadfly wrote:
I agree that lifetime appointments is an idea that should be up for debate. Term limits are the biggest government check on corruption that we have. The idea is that lifetime supreme court appointments frees the justices somewhat from the outside influences of money and, accountability for their decisions and political brinksmanship. The problem are pretty much the same as these supposed advantages.

Jun 28, 2013 10:44am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.