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

State of New York v. Scalia

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Decided
November 6, 2020

U.S. Chamber and other business associations appeal district court decision invalidating Department of Labor’s global role defining “joint employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

State of New York v. Scalia

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Decided
November 6, 2020

U.S. Chamber and other business associations appeal district court decision invalidating Department of Labor’s global role defining “joint employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

State of New York v. Scalia

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Decided
November 6, 2020

U.S. Chamber and other business associations appeal district court decision invalidating Department of Labor’s global role defining “joint employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

State of New York v. Scalia

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Decided
November 6, 2020

U.S. Chamber and other business associations appeal district court decision invalidating Department of Labor’s global role defining “joint employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. 

Alaska Community Action on Toxics v. Council on Environmental Quality

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Pending
October 19, 2020

U.S. Chamber, business, and labor groups move to intervene and to dismiss challenges to regulations from CEQ to reform the process of agency review of environmental impacts under NEPA.

State of New York v. EPA

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decided
July 14, 2020

DC Circuit remands to the EPA for better explanation of why the agency denied New York’s petition, which sought additional controls on 350 sources across 9 states.  The U.S. Chamber and other business groups intervened to help defend EPA’s decision to deny the petition. 

State of New York v. EPA

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decided
July 14, 2020

DC Circuit remands to the EPA for better explanation of why the agency denied New York’s petition, which sought additional controls on 350 sources across 9 states.  The U.S. Chamber and other business groups intervened to help defend EPA’s decision to deny the petition. 

State of New York v. EPA

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Decided
July 14, 2020

DC Circuit remands to the EPA for better explanation of why the agency denied New York’s petition, which sought additional controls on 350 sources across 9 states.  The U.S. Chamber and other business groups intervened to help defend EPA’s decision to deny the petition. 

State of Colorado v. EPA

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
Decided
June 19, 2020

District of Colorado grants preliminary injunction against Navigable Waters Protection Rule, staying the effective date of the Rule in Colorado under 5 U.S.C. 705. The U.S. Chamber moved to intervene to defend the Rule along with a broad coalition of trade associations.

State of Colorado v. EPA

U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
Decided
June 19, 2020

District of Colorado grants preliminary injunction against Navigable Waters Protection Rule, staying the effective date of the Rule in Colorado under 5 U.S.C. 705. The U.S. Chamber moved to intervene to defend the Rule along with a broad coalition of trade associations.

Sierra Club v. EPA

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Pending
June 8, 2020

U.S. Chamber and business associations move to intervene in defense of EPA’s rule updating the hazardous air pollutant emissions standards for stationary combustion turbines under the residual risk and technology review process.  

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.

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.

Pages