United States: The Gorsuch Nomination: The Return Of The Business Friendly Court?

Last Updated: February 15 2017
Article by Robert Loeb and Paul David Meyer

Assuming Judge Gorsuch's confirmation, the Court will add a Justice with extensive commercial litigation experience, a particular expertise in antitrust and securities law, and a track record on the bench that demonstrates a sensitivity to the challenges facing businesses. After reviewing Judge Gorsuch's background and record of judicial opinions, it appears that the prior relatively pro-business conservative trajectory of the Supreme Court will now be restored.

Before joining the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Gorsuch spent a decade in private practice as a commercial litigator. His writings from that time, combined with the more than 230 judicial opinions he has authored on the bench, provide strong clues as to how a Justice Gorsuch may approach some of the most pressing commercial issues likely to find their way to the Supreme Court in the coming terms. 

The following are particularly significant areas of the Court's business jurisprudence where Judge Gorsuch's vote could often be decisive. 

Class Actions

Five years ago, the Supreme Court in Wal-Mart v. Dukes heralded a new era of heightened judicial scrutiny of class actions by requiring district courts to aggressively police class certification requests. The Court reinforced that position in later cases like Comcast v. Behrend—again raising the bar for what plaintiffs must demonstrate to certify a class.

Although courts have not applied Wal-Mart and Comcast as broadly as some believed they would, the cases have provided powerful tools for our clients to defeat certification and reduce the leverage of class action plaintiffs in settlement negotiations. So it was no surprise when the Supreme Court's class action jurisprudence appeared near the top of the list of targets that the plaintiffs' bar identified as ripe for change in the event of a left-leaning court had the election gone the other way. 

But with a Justice Gorsuch on the Court, what should we expect? In the 2008 case of Shook v. Board of County Commissioners of County of El Paso, Judge Gorsuch authored the majority opinion that affirmed a district court's denial of class certification in a case brought by mentally ill inmates. The majority upheld the district court's conclusion that the class would be unmanageable, in large part because of the difficulty in crafting injunctive relief applicable to the class as a whole. Although not a business case, those same principles resonate in the commercial class action context.

In a 2005 working paper on securities fraud class actions, Gorsuch (then a commercial litigation partner) acknowledged the general utility of the class action device in some contexts, but remarked that "economic incentives" in "securities litigation encourage class action lawyers to bring meritless claims and prompt corporate defendants to pay dearly to settle such claims." And in a separate 2005 article, Gorsuch commented that "securities fraud litigation imposes an enormous toll on the economy, affecting virtually every public corporation in America at one time or another and costing businesses billions of dollars in settlements every year."

Given those indications, it is safe to assume that Wal-Mart and Comcast will remain good law if Judge Gorsuch joins the Court, and that the Court may expand the tools available to defendants to defeat class certification.

A question currently percolating in the circuit courts is how readily identifiable a class needs to be at the certification stage. Several circuits have recognized that to certify a class, an implicit threshold requirement is that the members of a proposed class be ascertainable. Courts, however, have disagreed about whether ascertainability is a separate pre-certification inquiry, and, if so, how rigorous a standard it is.

The Seventh Circuit has adopted an approach that allows for class certification without requiring plaintiffs to show that class members can actually be ascertained in a feasible and reliable way. Before Justice Scalia's passing, Orrick filed a petition for certiorari challenging the Seventh Circuit's holding. Many thought there was a good chance the Court would hear the case. But after Justice Scalia died, the Court denied review. With Judge Gorsuch on the Court, we believe there would be a good chance that the issue would be decided in the coming terms, and we are cautiously optimistic that the Court would hold that the methods to determine the contours of a class must be both reliable and feasible. 

A second pressing class action issue concerns whether plaintiffs can manufacture appellate jurisdiction to obtain review of a district court's denial of class certification. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Microsoft v. Baker to address that question. In Microsoft, a group of plaintiffs brought a class action suit alleging defects in a video game system. The district court denied certification and the Ninth Circuit did not permit an interlocutory appeal. Instead of settling their claims, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims with prejudice and then filed a notice of appeal to challenge the certification decision.

The Ninth Circuit held that the voluntary dismissal of claims could give rise to appellate jurisdiction to review the certification decision "because a dismissal of an action with prejudice, even when such dismissal is the product of a [voluntary] stipulation, is a sufficiently adverse—and thus appealable—final decision."

The Supreme Court granted certiorari in January 2016 to consider the question and has scheduled oral argument for March. If Judge Gorsuch is confirmed, we expect the Court to likely disagree with the Ninth Circuit and hold that there was no jurisdiction to consider the appeal. That would mean that after a district court denies class certification and a court of appeals refuses to hear an interlocutory appeal of that decision, plaintiffs can either settle the case and forgo any appeal, or litigate their individual claim to verdict and then pursue an appeal.

Arbitration

A second area of business jurisprudence that will likely remain front-and-center at the Supreme Court concerns the ability of companies to enforce agreements to arbitrate claims. The Federal Arbitration Act establishes "a liberal policy favoring arbitration agreements"—a policy that the Court has expansively interpreted in recent decades as it has emphasized that district courts must "rigorously enforce" agreements to arbitrate. As with the Court's class-action jurisprudence, the seminal cases expanding the reach of the FAA have featured narrow majorities with sharp dissents.

In 2001, for instance, a 5-4 majority held in Circuit City Stores v. Adams that that the FAA mandates the enforcement of arbitration agreements in employment contracts for non-transportation workers. A decade later, AT&T v. Concepcion held that the FAA preempts state laws that prohibit the enforcement of arbitration agreements requiring that complaints be arbitrated individually instead of on a collective or class basis.

Given the vigorous dissents in those cases and the growing scrutiny of arbitration agreements in the news media and popular culture, many commentators predicted a significant pullback in the Court's arbitration jurisprudence if the Court swung to the left with a liberal appointee filling Justice Scalia's seat. But Judge Gorsuch's opinions on the Tenth Circuit suggest that his confirmation would restore the pro-arbitration direction of the Court. Here is a sample of relevant opinions he has authored:

  • Ragab v. Howard: Dissenting, Judge Gorsuch disagreed with the majority's refusal to compel arbitration. The majority held that the parties never had a meeting of the minds regarding arbitration because there were six different arbitration agreements at issue, each with different provisions. Judge Gorsuch, however, concluded that the parties clearly intended to arbitrate their disagreement, even if some of the details were unclear. In so concluding, Judge Gorsuch emphasized the FAA's requirement that arbitration agreements be treated just like other contracts.
  • Howard v. Ferrellgas Partners: In a majority opinion vacating a district court's refusal to compel arbitration, Judge Gorsuch rebuked the district court for failing to quickly decide the arbitrability of a claim. As Judge Gorsuch wrote, "The object is always to decide quickly—summarily—the proper venue for the case, whether it be the courtroom or the conference room, so the parties can get on with the merits of their dispute." More colorfully, Judge Gorsuch commented that "[p]arties should not have to endure years of waiting and exhaust legions of photocopiers in discovery and motions practice merely to learn where their dispute will be heard. The Act requires courts process the venue question quickly so the parties can get on with the merits of their dispute in the right forum." 

Judge Gorsuch's appointment will also be important to the outcome in three recent cases the Supreme Court granted to decide whether the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which grants employees the right to engage in concerted action and collective activities, conflicts with contracts that require employees to arbitrate claims individually, and not as a group or class. The Ninth and Seventh Circuits have agreed with the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) that the NLRA bars the enforcement of mandatory employment arbitration agreements that require the individual arbitration of claims. Other circuits have disagreed. The stakes are substantial, potentially affecting thousands of employers and millions of workers who have signed arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.  

Given Judge Gorsuch's deep-rooted skepticism of administrative agency interpretations of the law, described further below, and his history of enforcing arbitration agreements according to their terms, he may likely disagree with the NLRB's conclusion that class action waivers are unenforceable in mandatory employment arbitration agreements.  In any event, his vote on this case may serve as a bellwether as to how a Justice Gorsuch will approach statutory and arbitration issues in the years to come. 

Deference to Administrative Agencies

A common issue that arises in a variety of statutory and regulatory schemes is how much deference courts give to agencies like the Department of Labor when the agencies interpret statutes that they administer. In this area, Judge Gorsuch has repeatedly expressed a distrust of the power entrusted to agencies by the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which established a framework within which courts routinely defer to agency interpretations of statutes as long as they are reasonable. In a concurring opinion that Judge Gorsuch authored in a recent immigration case, he argued that Chevron has allowed "executive bureaucracies to swallow huge amounts of core judicial and legislative power and concentrate federal power in a way that seems more than a little difficult to square with the Constitution of the framers' design. Maybe the time has come to face the behemoth."

A decision to revisit Chevron could have significant implications, and it is unlikely that the Court will do so in the near future. But Judge Gorsuch's opinions on the Tenth Circuit also shed light on how he would approach individual cases involving agency rulings. Among those opinions:

  • NLRB v. Community Health Services: Dissenting, Judge Gorsuch disagreed with the majority's decision to affirm the Board's award of full backpay to certain employees as a result of an improper reduction in hours, where the employees had earned income from secondary employment that was not deducted from the backpay award. Judge Gorsuch vigorously disputed the Board's approach to the compensation calculation, remarking: "In the end, it's difficult to come away from this case without wondering if the board's actions stem from a frustration with the current statutory limits on its remedial powers—a frustration that it cannot pursue more tantalizing goals like punishing employers for unlawful actions or maximizing employment.... But ... frustration should not beget license. In our legal order the proper avenue for addressing any dissatisfaction with congressional limits on agency authority lies in new legislation, not administrative ipse dixit."
  • TransAm Trucking, Inc. v. Administrative Review Board: Dissenting, Judge Gorsuch disagreed with the majority's decision upholding the Department of Labor's broad interpretation of whistleblower provisions in a federal statute. Channeling Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch argued that the interpretation was untethered from the statutory language itself:  "Maybe the Department would like such a law, maybe someday Congress will adorn our federal statute books with such a law. But it isn't there yet. And it isn't our job to write one—or to allow the Department to write one in Congress's place."
  • Compass Environmental, Inc. v. OSHRC: Dissenting, Judge Gorsuch disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold an Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission order that fined an employer after an excavator operator died on-the-job after being electrocuted by an overhead power line. Judge Gorsuch believed that the case was another example of administrative agencies overstepping their bounds and "penalize[ing] private persons and companies" without any evidence of a legal violation. 
  • Teamsters Local Union No. 455 v. NLRB: In a majority opinion affirming an NLRB order, Judge Gorsuch agreed with the Board's rejection of a labor union's challenge to an employer's lockout. The union argued that the lockout was tainted by unlawful conduct, and that employees should receive backpay as a result. The Board disagreed and Judge Gorsuch upheld the Board's ruling. In so holding, Judge Gorsuch quoted Supreme Court precedent establishing that an employer may "consistent with the NLRA, lock out employees during collective bargaining negotiations to 'bring[ ] economic pressure to bear in support of [its] legitimate bargaining position.'"

Other Areas of Interest

Securities Litigation: The most prominent securities litigation opinion that Judge Gorsuch has authored—MHC Mutual Conversion Fund, L.P. v. Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P.—suggested that he would take a narrow view of liability in investor suits. The opinion concerned when a defendant may be held liable, pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, for an opinion contained in a public statement, when the opinion turns out to be false. Judge Gorsuch's opinion held that the plaintiffs' allegations were insufficient to survive a motion to dismiss because they failed to adequately allege that the defendant knew the opinions were false when they were made, or that the defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for the opinion. A year later, the Supreme Court generally agreed with that view of Section 11 liability in Omnicare, Inc. v. Laborers District Council Construction Industry Pension Fund. Judge Gorsuch's opinion, however, suggests that he would impose stricter limits on liability than what the Supreme Court imposed in Omnicare, insofar as Omnicare allows for liability in cases where a defendant lacked a reasonable basis for an opinion, in addition to cases where the defendant knew an opinion was false.  In MHC Mutual, Judge Gorsuch doubted "the consistency of [the reasonable basis] test with the statutory text and history," although his opinion did not expressly reject it.

Bankruptcy: Judge Gorsuch's bankruptcy jurisprudence is consistent with his textualist approach to other areas of the law. He has also been willing to criticize Supreme Court precedent that he believes strays from that approach. For instance, in the Chapter 13 case of In re Woolsey, Judge Gorsuch criticized the controlling Supreme Court opinion of Dewsnup v. Timm—which bars lien stripping in Chapter 7remarking that "the Dewsnuppian departure from the statute's plain language is the law. It may have warped the bankruptcy code's seemingly straight path into a crooked one. It may not be infallible. But until and unless the Court chooses to revisit it, it is final." Notably, Justice Scalia had dissented in Dewsnup because he believed the majority's opinion ignored the plain language of the Bankruptcy Code. Judge Gorsuch, like Justice Scalia, will therefore likely be unwilling to veer far from the plain meaning of statutory text to entertain policy arguments that frequently arise in the bankruptcy context.

Conclusion

If the Senate confirms Judge Gorsuch's nomination, we expect the Court to return to its business-friendly leanings and Judge Gorsuch to continue as a proponent of originalism and textualism in constitutional and statutory interpretation.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Events from this Firm
21 Sep 2018, Conference, Florida, United States

Employment partner, Michael Weil will be participating in The Intellectual Property Law Institute’s 2018 Conference.

26 Sep 2018, Conference, New York, United States

Employment Partner, Mandy Perry and Chair of Orrick's Global Employment Law Practice, Mike Delikat will be participating in the Global Business Protections 2018: International Restrictive Covenants and Confidential Information Conference.

26 Sep 2018, Seminar, Tokyo, Japan

Orrick’s Global Japan Practice is hosting a series of “Orrick Library” seminars to explore legal issues in various fields in Japan as well as the United States, Asia and Europe

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions