Briefs Authored by Public Good

For more information about a case, click on the case description below.

• Does California’s “ability to benefit” law, protecting students from being tricked into going into debt to pay for useless vocational training, violate the schools’ and prospective students’ First Amendment rights to academic freedom?
  • Pacific Coast Horseshoeing School, Inc. v. Grafilo (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit)
• The First Amendment free speech rights of e-cigarette manufacturers are not violated by a requirement that claims of reduced harm must be proven before they are advertised to the public, nor by a ban on free samples.
  • Nicopure Labs, LLC v. FDA (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit)
• Philadelphia may legally impose a tax on sweetened beverages to fund services to low-income residents.
  • Williams v. City of Philadelphia (Pennsylvania Supreme Court)
• In a 5-4 party-line decision, the Supreme Court holds that the First Amendment rights of “pro-life” pregnancy centers are violated by California’s disclosure requirements.
  • Nat’l Ass’n of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (U.S. Supreme Court)
• California borrowers paying over 100% annual interest rates can bring a claim that the loan terms are unconscionable.
  • De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit; California Supreme Court)
• Did FTC interpretation that federal prohibition on telemarketing robocalls applies to telemarketing calls using soundboard technology comport with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment?
  • Soundboard Association v. FTC (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit)
• Does the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which regulates abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors, cover regular debt buyers?
  • Henson v. Santander Consumer USA, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court)
• Does a prohibition on imposing surcharges for paying by credit card violate the free speech protections of the First Amendment?
  • Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
• Telecommunications companies do not get a free pass from regulation by the FTC simply because part of their business involves ‘common carrier’ operations that are not subject to FTC regulation.
  • FTC v. AT&T Mobility, LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit)
• Are the First Amendment rights of soft drink advertisers violated by an ordinance requiring prominent health warnings on advertisements for sugar sweetened beverages?
  • American Beverage Ass’n v. City & County of San Francisco (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit)
• The NYC Board of Health May Require Chain Restaurants to Post Warnings Alerting Customers to High Sodium Menu Items.
  • National Restaurant Ass’n v. New York City Dept. of Health and Mental Hygiene (N.Y. Supreme Court, Appellate Div.)
• The California Insurance Commissioner has the authority to issue a rule specifying that a particular practice is “misleading.”
  • Ass’n of California Insurance Cos. v. Jones (California Supreme Court)
• D.C. Circuit finds that SEC rule requiring manufacturers to disclose when minerals in their products were not found to be “DRC conflict-free” violates manufacturers’ First Amendment rights.
  • Nat’l Ass’n of Manufacturers v. SEC (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit)
• Does the possible applicability of two laws regulating companies conducting background checks on employees mean that they laws are unconstitutionally vague, so that neither applies?
  • Connor v. First Student (California Supreme Court)
• Should the First Amendment protect food companies that want to label genetically modified foods as “natural,” and don’t want to disclose the presence of genetically modified ingredients?
  • Grocery Manufacturers’ Ass’n v. Sorrell (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
• Are the First Amendment rights of tobacco companies violated by a court order that they issue factual statements about the harms of tobacco use and disclose their own past deceptive conduct?
  • Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. United States of America (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit)
• Online payday lenders cannot shield their illegal behavior from state law enforcement by simply affiliating nominally with Indian tribes and then claiming sovereign immunity.
  • People ex rel. Owen v. Miami Nations Enterprises (California Supreme Court)
• Second Circuit stretches federal racketeering law to find that a pressure campaign against corporate misconduct constitutes a racketeering conspiracy.
  • Chevron Corp. v. Donziger (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
• Did New York City Dept. of Health act arbitrarily and capriciously in limiting sizes of servings of sugar-sweetened beverages, in effort to combat obesity health crisis?
  • New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene (N.Y. Court of Appeals)
• A lenient standard of First Amendment review applies when government requires companies to disclose factual information for the public interest.
  • American Meat Inst. v. United States Dept. of Agriculture (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, en banc)
• Requiring pharmacy benefit managers to send data to insurance companies does not compel speech in violation of California’s Free Speech Clause.
  • Beeman v. Anthem Prescription Management (California Supreme Court)
• Restricting the sale of tobacco products at discounted prices does not violate the free speech rights of tobacco sellers.
  • National Ass’n of Tobacco Outlets, Inc. v. City of Providence (U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit; U.S. District Court, Rhode Island)
• Ninth Circuit limits homeowners’ protections against predatory lenders.
  • McOmie v. Bank of America Home Loans (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit)
• Second Circuit finds municipal requirement that tobacco retailers post graphic warnings to be preempted by federal law.
  • 23-34 94th St. Grocery Corp. v. New York City Bd. of Health (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
• United States Supreme Court weakens public campaign financing by striking down awards of extra funds to opponents of high spending candidates.
  • Arizona Free Enterprise Club’s Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett; McComish v. Bennett (U.S. Supreme Court)
• United States Supreme Court makes it difficult to hold corporations and individuals liable for committing human rights violations in foreign countries.
  • Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit)
• Sixth Circuit finds that most of new federal statutory restrictions on tobacco marketing do not violate the free speech rights of tobacco companies.
  • Discount Tobacco City & Lottery, Inc. v. United States (U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit)
• California Supreme Court affirms that consumers who have been sold falsely labeled goods are covered by California’s core consumer protection laws.
  • Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court (California Supreme Court)
• United States Supreme Court upholds government’s ability to require that businesses disclose factual information to consumers.
  • Milavetz, Fallop & Milavetz, P.A. v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court)
• United States Supreme Court, in a close and controversial decision, strikes down restrictions on corporate ‘soft money’ political campaign spending.
  • Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission (U.S. Supreme Court)
• High school student loses fight to refrain from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance without first getting his parents’ permission.
  • Frazier v. Winn (U.S. Supreme Court)
• Court of Appeals amends opinion that threatened to eliminate statute of limitations defense for debtors in credit card collection cases.
  • Avery v. First Resolution Management Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit)
• California Supreme Court ‘depublishes’ opinion that would have prevented consumers from protecting themselves against credit reporting abuses.
  • Liceaga v. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC (California Supreme Court)

Briefs Joined By Public Good

For more information about a case, click on the case description below.

• May the Department of Education lawfully undo protections for vocational students without complying with the rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act?
  • Maryland v. U.S. Dept. of Education (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia)
• Consumer advocates, environmentalists, and labor challenge legality of executive order requiring new federal regulations to be offset by elimination of two existing regulations.
  • Public Citizen v. Trump (U.S. District Court, District of Columbia)
• Supreme Court holds that private attorneys’ use of state Attorney General’s letterhead in collection letters is not deceptive, but follows amicus brief in declining to reach broader issues that would limit protections for consumers.
  • Sheriff v. Gillie (U.S. Supreme Court)
• California court of appeal finds that loan servicer does not owe a duty of care to borrowers.
  • Conroy v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (California Court of Appeal)
• Courts uphold “gainful employment rule” protecting low-income students at predatory for-profit career programs that leave students in debt they cannot repay.
  • Association of Private Sector Colleges Universities v. Duncan; Association of Proprietary Colleges v. Duncan (U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit; U.S. District Court, Southern District, New York)
• Is California law regulating the background-check industry constitutional?
  • Moran v. The Screening Pros (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit)
• Are corporations complicit in torture in foreign countries exempt from lawsuit in United States courts?
  • Mastafa v. Chevron Corp. (U.S. District Court, Southern District, New York)
• Supreme Court holds that restrictions on marketing physician-identifying prescription data violates marketers’ freedom of speech.
  • Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc. (U.S. Supreme Court)
• United States Supreme Court rules that California’s guarantees of legal access for defrauded consumers are pre-empted by federal law.
  • AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion (U.S. Supreme Court)
• Are corporations complicit in torture in foreign countries exempt from lawsuit in United States courts?
  • Bowoto v. Chevron Corp. (U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit)
• California Supreme Court Upholds Patient Privacy Protections.
  • Brown v. Mortensen (California Supreme Court)
• Should companies that improperly charge sales tax be immune from lawsuits seeking to recover the charges?
  • Loeffler v. Target, Inc. (California Supreme Court)
• United States Supreme Court limits victims’ ability to band together against large companies that have violated the law.
  • Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp. (U.S. Supreme Court)