Appellate

Subscribe to Appellate via RSS

We recently wrote about a federal case here and here involving key issues related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) authority to enforce the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act) against federally recognized Indian tribes and ATF’s interpretation of key sections of the PACT Act. In addition to appealing the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California’s decision, we noted that the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (the Tribe) asked the district court to require ATF to remove it from the agency’s PACT Act noncompliant list (NCL) and prevent ATF and the other defendant, the Department of Justice from taking action against it pending its appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 30, the federal district court denied the Tribe’s request.

In 2023, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) placed Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (Twenty-Nine Palms), a federally recognized Indian tribe that sells cigarettes on sovereign reservations in California, on the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act’s (PACT Act’s) noncompliant list (NCL). The PACT Act generally prohibits common carriers from shipping products to or from companies on the NCL. After ATF placed Twenty-Nine Palms on the NCL, the tribe sued ATF and its parent agency, the Department of Justice (DOJ), in federal court. This case is worth following because it involves key issues related to ATF’s authority to enforce the PACT Act against federally recognized Indian tribes and ATF’s interpretation of key sections of the PACT Act.

In this episode of our special Regulatory Oversight: Solicitors General Insights series, Jeff Johnson is joined by District of Columbia Solicitor General Caroline Van Zile and Washington Solicitor General Noah Purcell to discuss their respective offices, and the distinct challenges and focuses of each. Noah shares insights into the Washington Solicitor General’s Office, and Caroline discusses the multifaceted nature of the District of Columbia Solicitor General’s Office, as they balance a diverse array of appellate work and providing legal advice on novel issues.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently enjoined Texas Attorney General (AG) Ken Paxton from enforcing a pre-litigation subpoena issued to Media Matters for America (Media Matters). The subpoena is related to the Texas AG’s investigation into Media Matters arising out of allegations that the company fraudulently manipulated data after it reported about brand advertisement concerns on X.

We previously wrote about this case last January, here and here, when Iowans for Alternatives to Smoking & Tobacco, Inc., Global Source Distribution, LLC, and others filed a complaint and motion for a preliminary injunction in federal district court against the Iowa Department of Revenue (the Department), challenging Iowa House File 2677 (HF 2677), a law imposing certification and directory requirements on vapor products sold in Iowa. On May 2, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined the Department from implementing and enforcing HF 2677’s vapor product directory provisions. The court held that the Department could, however, continue to enforce the provisions of HF 2677 requiring nonresident vapor product manufacturers not registered to do business in the state as a foreign corporation or business entity to appoint and continually engage an agent for service of process. The parties have a status conference before the court scheduled for May 29.

NEW YORK – In a remarkable display of unity, a bipartisan coalition of the attorneys general for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Northern Mariana Islands filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Troutman Pepper Locke and Dominion Energy’s petition for extraordinary relief in the matter of Yoon v. Collins, which continues the fight for veterans’ denied educational benefits.

2025 is already shaping up to be an active year for False Claims Act (FCA) litigation. With the recent announcements of executive orders that may expand the FCA as an enforcement tool, as discussed in a recent Troutman Pepper Locke client alert, everyone is keeping a close eye on what is next. In the past few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has gotten in on the FCA action.

Last week, in Tennessee v. EEOC, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision and reinstated a lawsuit by 17 states (led by the Tennessee and Arkansas attorneys general (AGs)), holding that these states have standing to sue the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over its regulations implementing the Pregnant­ Workers Fairness Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000gg. This decision deserves mention because the court seemingly made it easier to demonstrate standing by finding that the “realities facing” regulated parties can demonstrate a concrete injury even without a threat of enforcement.

On January 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit found that Virginia’s hemp product restrictions do not violate federal law. The ruling is the latest defeat for the Virginia hemp industry’s efforts to overturn Virginia S.B. 903, a law intended to prohibit the sale of intoxicating hemp products like delta-8 and delta-10 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) gummies and beverages in the Commonwealth.