Sign Up for PublicationsA Review of Selected Decisions of Interest to the Business Community from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2024-2025 Term
In the October 2024 term, which finished in July 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down several cases relevant to the business community. Continuing a pro-business trend from prior years, most of the Court’s major decisions will likely have a positive or, at worst, a neutral effect on the business community. This is most acutely seen in the area of administrative law, where the Court loosened standing requirements and hopefully streamlined environmental permitting. But the results were not universally pro-business. The Court rejected nationwide injunctions and widened Civil RICO liability—two holdings that could negatively impact businesses.
Trump v. CASA, Inc.
In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the Supreme Court addressed whether lower courts have the power to enjoin executive or legislative policy universally through their inherent equitable authority. These types of universal injunctions had become increasingly common—to the point where nearly every major presidential act was immediately frozen by a federal district court. In CASA, the Supreme Court ended that practice. It held that courts do not have the equitable power to issue universal injunctions; they can issue injunctions that grant complete relief only to the parties before them. Under CASA, businesses will have a harder time benefiting from the efforts of others in challenging new and intrusive government policies. But, as the Court acknowledged, other avenues may remain available to lessen CASA’s impact. For instance, parties can seek to certify a nationwide class of similarly situated businesses and then seek a preliminary injunction. And the Court explicitly left open the separate question whether the Administrative Procedure Act authorizes federal courts to vacate federal agency action across the board.
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County
In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the Supreme Court addressed federal administrative action under Loper Bright—the landmark case from the prior term overruling Chevron and doing away with the practice of deferring to an agency’s interpretation of ambiguities in the statutes that they administer. Nonetheless, the Court in Loper Bright recognized that Congress can sometimes delegate discretion to agencies and that courts should respect those delegations when present. Seven County is such a case. The case arose from a proposal to build a pipeline in Utah. Following extensive public comment, the Surface Transportation Board issued the environmental-impact statement that the National Environmental Protection Act requires. The D.C. Circuit found that the Board’s impact statement was inadequate because it did not address upstream oil drilling and downstream refining impacts. The Supreme Court reversed. It found that Congress granted agencies broad discretion over environmental-impact statements, and that it is thus not the job of the courts to micromanage what details go into those statements. Impact statements serve procedural, not substantive, ends. In practical terms, Seven County means that environmental and other advocacy groups are less likely to be able to hold up new infrastructure projects based on perceived inadequacies in environmental-impact statements, thereby streamlining the federal permitting process for capital-intensive development. The case also shows that, in some instances, deference to agencies can promote business interests.
Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA
In another administrative-law case, Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Court made it easier for businesses to seek judicial relief from burdensome regulations that may affect them only indirectly. In the past, businesses that were affected only indirectly by regulations had trouble proving Article III standing—which requires a concrete injury traceable to the regulation and redressable by a court. No more. The Supreme Court held that courts may make “commonsense” inferences about regulated entities’ behavior when assessing whether indirectly affected parties have Article III standing. This decision means that companies need not be directly regulated to have standing to sue. Instead, any business suffering predictable economic harm downstream from agency regulations or actions now has a viable pathway to challenge the regulation or action in federal court.
Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn
In Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, the Supreme Court expanded the reach of the federal RICO statute. There, the Supreme Court resolved a circuit split over whether business or property losses derived from personal injuries can trigger potential RICO liability—along with its attendant treble damages. The Court, unfortunately, answered yes: Business or property damage resulting from a personal injury can fall within the RICO statute. Horn could thus incentivize personal-injury attorneys to turn personal-injury cases into RICO cases—especially given the possibility of treble damages. How Horn ends up being used by plaintiffs’ attorneys and applied by lower courts is something that businesses—and product manufacturers in particular—should watch carefully.