Regulatory Lawsuits

The following are cases in which the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, represented by the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, is participating as a party—a plaintiff, petitioner, or an intervenor.

Results are sorted by the date of most recent activity.

Filter Results

Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Resolved without decision
April 10, 2020

U.S. Chamber and co-plaintiff dismiss without prejudice remaining antitrust claims against City of Seattle’s unionization ordinance for independent contractors.  Through its litigation, the U.S. Chamber blocked implementation of this ordinance for more than four years (it has never been implemented).  As a result of the U.S. Chamber’s antitrust claims, in 2019 the City also was forced to remove driver pay as a subject for permissible collective bargaining.  The City of Seattle has now enacted a new ordinance, which does not alter the status of drivers but which seeks to develop a different regulatory scheme regarding driver pay.  Because the City no longer plans to move forward with its old unionization ordinance and instead plans to implement this new ordinance, there is no longer a need to continue this litigation.  Accordingly, the U.S. Chamber and its co-plaintiff have voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims, but without prejudice to reviving the suit in the future if the City ever did reanimate its effort to unionize independent contractors.

Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Resolved without decision
April 10, 2020

U.S. Chamber and co-plaintiff dismiss without prejudice remaining antitrust claims against City of Seattle’s unionization ordinance for independent contractors.  Through its litigation, the U.S. Chamber blocked implementation of this ordinance for more than four years (it has never been implemented).  As a result of the U.S. Chamber’s antitrust claims, in 2019 the City also was forced to remove driver pay as a subject for permissible collective bargaining.  The City of Seattle has now enacted a new ordinance, which does not alter the status of drivers but which seeks to develop a different regulatory scheme regarding driver pay.  Because the City no longer plans to move forward with its old unionization ordinance and instead plans to implement this new ordinance, there is no longer a need to continue this litigation.  Accordingly, the U.S. Chamber and its co-plaintiff have voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims, but without prejudice to reviving the suit in the future if the City ever did reanimate its effort to unionize independent contractors.

Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Resolved without decision
April 10, 2020

U.S. Chamber and co-plaintiff dismiss without prejudice remaining antitrust claims against City of Seattle’s unionization ordinance for independent contractors.  Through its litigation, the U.S. Chamber blocked implementation of this ordinance for more than four years (it has never been implemented).  As a result of the U.S. Chamber’s antitrust claims, in 2019 the City also was forced to remove driver pay as a subject for permissible collective bargaining.  The City of Seattle has now enacted a new ordinance, which does not alter the status of drivers but which seeks to develop a different regulatory scheme regarding driver pay.  Because the City no longer plans to move forward with its old unionization ordinance and instead plans to implement this new ordinance, there is no longer a need to continue this litigation.  Accordingly, the U.S. Chamber and its co-plaintiff have voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims, but without prejudice to reviving the suit in the future if the City ever did reanimate its effort to unionize independent contractors.

Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Resolved without decision
April 10, 2020

U.S. Chamber and co-plaintiff dismiss without prejudice remaining antitrust claims against City of Seattle’s unionization ordinance for independent contractors.  Through its litigation, the U.S. Chamber blocked implementation of this ordinance for more than four years (it has never been implemented).  As a result of the U.S. Chamber’s antitrust claims, in 2019 the City also was forced to remove driver pay as a subject for permissible collective bargaining.  The City of Seattle has now enacted a new ordinance, which does not alter the status of drivers but which seeks to develop a different regulatory scheme regarding driver pay.  Because the City no longer plans to move forward with its old unionization ordinance and instead plans to implement this new ordinance, there is no longer a need to continue this litigation.  Accordingly, the U.S. Chamber and its co-plaintiff have voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims, but without prejudice to reviving the suit in the future if the City ever did reanimate its effort to unionize independent contractors.

Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Resolved without decision
April 10, 2020

U.S. Chamber and co-plaintiff dismiss without prejudice remaining antitrust claims against City of Seattle’s unionization ordinance for independent contractors.  Through its litigation, the U.S. Chamber blocked implementation of this ordinance for more than four years (it has never been implemented).  As a result of the U.S. Chamber’s antitrust claims, in 2019 the City also was forced to remove driver pay as a subject for permissible collective bargaining.  The City of Seattle has now enacted a new ordinance, which does not alter the status of drivers but which seeks to develop a different regulatory scheme regarding driver pay.  Because the City no longer plans to move forward with its old unionization ordinance and instead plans to implement this new ordinance, there is no longer a need to continue this litigation.  Accordingly, the U.S. Chamber and its co-plaintiff have voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims, but without prejudice to reviving the suit in the future if the City ever did reanimate its effort to unionize independent contractors.

Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Resolved without decision
April 10, 2020

U.S. Chamber and co-plaintiff dismiss without prejudice remaining antitrust claims against City of Seattle’s unionization ordinance for independent contractors.  Through its litigation, the U.S. Chamber blocked implementation of this ordinance for more than four years (it has never been implemented).  As a result of the U.S. Chamber’s antitrust claims, in 2019 the City also was forced to remove driver pay as a subject for permissible collective bargaining.  The City of Seattle has now enacted a new ordinance, which does not alter the status of drivers but which seeks to develop a different regulatory scheme regarding driver pay.  Because the City no longer plans to move forward with its old unionization ordinance and instead plans to implement this new ordinance, there is no longer a need to continue this litigation.  Accordingly, the U.S. Chamber and its co-plaintiff have voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims, but without prejudice to reviving the suit in the future if the City ever did reanimate its effort to unionize independent contractors.

Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Resolved without decision
April 10, 2020

U.S. Chamber and co-plaintiff dismiss without prejudice remaining antitrust claims against City of Seattle’s unionization ordinance for independent contractors.  Through its litigation, the U.S. Chamber blocked implementation of this ordinance for more than four years (it has never been implemented).  As a result of the U.S. Chamber’s antitrust claims, in 2019 the City also was forced to remove driver pay as a subject for permissible collective bargaining.  The City of Seattle has now enacted a new ordinance, which does not alter the status of drivers but which seeks to develop a different regulatory scheme regarding driver pay.  Because the City no longer plans to move forward with its old unionization ordinance and instead plans to implement this new ordinance, there is no longer a need to continue this litigation.  Accordingly, the U.S. Chamber and its co-plaintiff have voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims, but without prejudice to reviving the suit in the future if the City ever did reanimate its effort to unionize independent contractors.

Chamber of Commerce v. City of Seattle

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Resolved without decision
April 10, 2020

U.S. Chamber and co-plaintiff dismiss without prejudice remaining antitrust claims against City of Seattle’s unionization ordinance for independent contractors.  Through its litigation, the U.S. Chamber blocked implementation of this ordinance for more than four years (it has never been implemented).  As a result of the U.S. Chamber’s antitrust claims, in 2019 the City also was forced to remove driver pay as a subject for permissible collective bargaining.  The City of Seattle has now enacted a new ordinance, which does not alter the status of drivers but which seeks to develop a different regulatory scheme regarding driver pay.  Because the City no longer plans to move forward with its old unionization ordinance and instead plans to implement this new ordinance, there is no longer a need to continue this litigation.  Accordingly, the U.S. Chamber and its co-plaintiff have voluntarily dismissed the remaining claims, but without prejudice to reviving the suit in the future if the City ever did reanimate its effort to unionize independent contractors.

Sierra Club v. EPA (Ozone SIL Guidance)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decided
April 7, 2020

D.C. Circuit holds that EPA memorandum on significant impact levels (SILs) for ozone is not final agency action subject to review under the Clean Air Act and dismisses environmental NGOs’ challenges to EPA’s memorandum.  The U.S. Chamber was part of a coalition of intervenors in support of EPA’s ozone SILs memorandum. 

Sierra Club v. EPA (Ozone SIL Guidance)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decided
April 7, 2020

D.C. Circuit holds that EPA memorandum on significant impact levels (SILs) for ozone is not final agency action subject to review under the Clean Air Act and dismisses environmental NGOs’ challenges to EPA’s memorandum.  The U.S. Chamber was part of a coalition of intervenors in support of EPA’s ozone SILs memorandum. 

Sierra Club v. EPA (Ozone SIL Guidance)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decided
April 7, 2020

D.C. Circuit holds that EPA memorandum on significant impact levels (SILs) for ozone is not final agency action subject to review under the Clean Air Act and dismisses environmental NGOs’ challenges to EPA’s memorandum.  The U.S. Chamber was part of a coalition of intervenors in support of EPA’s ozone SILs memorandum. 

Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decided
February 7, 2020

District Court releases full preliminary-injunction opinion enjoining California from enforcing anti-arbitration legislation AB 51.

Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decided
February 7, 2020

District Court releases full preliminary-injunction opinion enjoining California from enforcing anti-arbitration legislation AB 51.

Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decided
February 7, 2020

District Court releases full preliminary-injunction opinion enjoining California from enforcing anti-arbitration legislation AB 51.

Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decided
February 7, 2020

District Court releases full preliminary-injunction opinion enjoining California from enforcing anti-arbitration legislation AB 51.

Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decided
February 7, 2020

District Court releases full preliminary-injunction opinion enjoining California from enforcing anti-arbitration legislation AB 51.

Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decided
February 7, 2020

District Court releases full preliminary-injunction opinion enjoining California from enforcing anti-arbitration legislation AB 51.

Chamber of Commerce v. Becerra

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Decided
February 7, 2020

District Court releases full preliminary-injunction opinion enjoining California from enforcing anti-arbitration legislation AB 51.

Center for Biological Diversity v. Ashe; Defenders of Wildlife v. Ashe

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Decided
January 28, 2020

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remands, without vacating, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service decision to list the Northern Long-Eared Bat as “threatened” rather than endangered, ordering the agency to reevaluate aspects of the determination the court held were flawed.  The U.S. Chamber and a coalition of trade associations had intervened to defend the Service’s decision to list the species as “threatened.”

Center for Biological Diversity v. Ashe; Defenders of Wildlife v. Ashe

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Decided
January 28, 2020

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia remands, without vacating, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service decision to list the Northern Long-Eared Bat as “threatened” rather than endangered, ordering the agency to reevaluate aspects of the determination the court held were flawed.  The U.S. Chamber and a coalition of trade associations had intervened to defend the Service’s decision to list the species as “threatened.”

Pages