I used to look forward to listen to NPR

More on the Fifth Circuit and Texas courts trying to set national or even international regulatory policy from Mark Joseph Stern. Essentially, even when there is an existing statute that mandates venue in another court, (usually the DC Circuit, which has jurisdiction over agency matters), Texas courts try to circumvent.

The FDA is trying to get the USSC to step in. It would be absurd to affirm the Fifth Circuit, but then the USSC majority is absurd in much of it's reasoning

QUESTION PRESENTED The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, Div. A, 123 Stat. 1776, requires a person to obtain authorization from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before introducing a new tobacco product into interstate commerce. If FDA denies an application for authorization, “any person adversely affected by such * * * denial may file a petition for judicial review of such * * * denial with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia or for the circuit in which such person resides or has their principal place of business.” 21 U.S.C. 387l(a)(1). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has determined that a manufacturer may seek judicial review in that circuit even if it neither resides nor has its principal place of business there, so long as its petition is joined by a seller of its products, such as a gas station or convenience store, based in the circuit. The question presented is: Whether a manufacturer may file a petition for review in a circuit (other than the D.C. Circuit) where it neither resides nor has its principal place of business, if the petition is joined by a seller of the manufacturer’s products that is located within that circuit. (I)

 

Once again, a single Texas district court judge nominated by Trump setting national regulatory policy based on business interests knowing where to file. It’s ridiculous. Just blatant

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the U.S. government from trying to limit credit card late fees, siding with banks and other business lobbyists that had challenged the policy as unconstitutional.

On Friday, Pittman granted those lobbying groups’ requests, temporarily halting the policy before it could take effect on May 14. The decision in the Northern District of Texas marked a major early win for Bank of America, Capital One, Citibank and JPMorgan Chase, whose executives serve on the boards of directors for the organizations that sued the government, including the American Bankers Association and the Consumer Bankers Association.