NAM Legal Center

Earlier this week, we filed our opening brief challenging EPA’s new rule setting national drinking water standards for six PFAS substances. We argue that EPA exceeded its statutory authority and engaged in arbitrary and capricious decision making—including a deeply flawed cost-benefit analysis, a woefully incomplete feasibility analysis, the novel and unlawful use of a “hazard index,” the failure to consider reasonable alternatives or respond meaningfully to public comments that undercut its judgment and significant procedural deficiencies—requiring vacatur of the rule in its entirety.?

Amicus Win! Last Thursday, the 9th Circuit held that the government contractor defense—which shields contractors from liability for manufacturing products for the government that meet the government’s specifications—applies irrespective of whether a claim arises under state OR federal law. As we argued in our?amicus brief,?without the government contractor defense, manufacturers would be subject to liability for providing the government what it asked for, litigation would question military decisions about product design, and the costs of liability and higher insurance would be passed on to the government (and taxpayers) through higher prices. Excellent work from our amicus counsel Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. https://lnkd.in/ep5uVwx9

This week, we filed our reply brief in support of our coalition challenge to EPA's PM 2.5 rule. As we make clear, EPA failed to conduct the "thorough review" of the air quality criteria required by the Clean Air Act prior to changing the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM 2.5. And even if EPA had the authority to do what it did, its failure to consider cost, attainability and current air quality in its decision is an independent error that warrants vacatur of the rule. Fantastic work by our counsel Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. Read our brief in?Kentucky, et al. v. EPA?here: https://lnkd.in/djceEi6Y

Today, the Legal Center urged the full D.C. Circuit to rehear a flawed panel decision vacating FERC's authorization to expand an interstate natural gas pipeline. The panel's “market need” analysis--which focused on?one?state's energy policies—threatens to override national energy policy decisions that Congress assigned to FERC alone.?Check out coverage of the case here:?https://lnkd.in/eWj-QfHY

Civil Procedure and PFAS Liability collide in Tuesday's amicus filing. Fantastic work by our outside counsel, Sean Marotta of Hogan Lovells.

Amicus Filing! Last Friday, the NAM Legal Center filed a brief in Kurtz v. Kimberly-Clark, defending the parties’ district court-approved settlement from the baseless objections of a professional class-action objector.?Manufacturers have a strong interest in ensuring that courts have the tools to bring class actions to an end, particularly when the claims are highly speculative but take years to litigate.?Great work by our counsel Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.

The SEC may have waived the white flag, but the NAM is keeping up the fight. We are eager to continue defending America’s world-leading capital markets from the outsized and unregulated authority of proxy advisory firms.

Interlocutory review granted! This week, in?In re: Zantac Litigation, the Delaware Supreme Court agreed to review the trial court’s decision to admit unreliable expert testimony that was rejected by a federal MDL judge. As we argued in our amicus brief, both federal and Delaware law require trial courts to serve a rigorous gatekeeper role to ensure that juries are not unduly swayed by unreliable, unscientific opinions cloaked in the false authority of expertise. Stellar work from our amicus counsel Dechert LLP.

Pushing back on securities fraud claims: On Tuesday, the Legal Center asked SCOTUS to overturn a 9th Circuit decision that watered down the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act’s heightened pleading standard—that standard is critical for preventing baseless class actions brought solely to extract windfall settlements.

"[T]he Court concludes that the FTC lacks statutory authority to promulgate the Non-Compete Rule, and that the Rule is arbitrary and capricious. Thus, the FTC’s promulgation of the Rule is an unlawful agency action." A HUGE win for manufacturers and the rule of law!