U.S. Chamber Notches 12 Supreme Court Wins for Business

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Litigation Center secured 12 Supreme Court victories this Term in cases where it filed amicus briefs, according to Daryl Joseffer, president of the Litigation Center. The wins span two fronts: defending the Constitution's separation of powers and enforcing meaningful limits on liability.

The Chamber says the rulings bring greater regulatory and litigation certainty while lowering costs for businesses and their customers.

Curbing presidential power

In three cases, the Chamber backed separation-of-powers principles that it calls essential to accountable governance.

In Learning Resources v. Trump, the Court held that the president lacks authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Joseffer writes that the ruling reinforces the Founders' decision to vest taxing authority in Congress, and to permit delegation to the president only when Congress speaks clearly and imposes meaningful limits. The decision promotes stability and transparency in trade policy, according to the Chamber.

The Court also clarified the president's power to remove senior officials in two related cases. In Trump v. Slaughter, it held that the president retains broad constitutional authority to remove members of multimember commissions exercising executive authority, such as the FTC. In Trump v. Cook, it took the opposite approach for the Federal Reserve, recognizing the central bank's unique institutional role and longstanding independence. The president must establish cause to remove a member of the Fed's Board of Governors, subject to judicial review.

According to the Chamber, the pair of decisions strikes a careful balance—demanding administrative accountability while protecting the institutional independence businesses rely on for steady economic policy.

Liability confined to what Congress wrote

In three more cases, the Chamber countered the plaintiffs' bar on what Joseffer calls a core principle: liability must be grounded in what Congress wrote—not by what lawyers or courts wish it wrote. The Chamber filed amicus briefs supporting Supreme Court review in each case, followed by another on the merits.

In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the Court held that federal law bars state tort claims that would require a company to add a warning to a pesticide label already approved by the Environmental Protection Agency. Joseffer writes that the ruling protects manufacturers from crippling state tort claims when they comply with federal law, and should help many businesses subject to federal laws with similar language.

The Court also confirmed that where Congress has not expressly authorized private suits, courts cannot create them. In FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, it refused to read an implied private right of action into the Investment Company Act, reaffirming that Congress, not the courts, decides who may sue to enforce federal law.

In Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Court ruled it will not create any new causes of action under the Alien Tort Statute—a law that plaintiffs' lawyers have increasingly weaponized against U.S. businesses operating abroad, according to the Chamber. Joseffer calls it a significant win for companies that have faced enormous costs, reputational risk, and settlement pressure from novel and expansive liability theories.

Combined, the Chamber says, the three victories will help ensure businesses do not face exposure beyond what Congress has provided.

Beyond the Supreme Court

Founded in 1977, the Litigation Center files amicus briefs in state and federal courts nationwide, advocating limits on False Claims Act and wiretap litigation, explaining how courts should review administrative action after Loper Bright, and stemming novel public nuisance liability theories and abusive class actions.

It also brings suits on behalf of Chamber members. It recently won challenges to the Federal Trade Commission's Hart-Scott-Rodino Act Rule and the Federal Communications Commission's Digital Discrimination Rule, adding to a list of victories that cabin unlawful administrative action.

As federal agencies undertake deregulatory measures, the Litigation Center says it intervenes in litigation to defend pro-business rules and ensure a robust legal defense after changes in administration. With tariff power, removal authority and private rights of action now redrawn, the litigation patterns set this Term will shape corporate exposure—and the Chamber's courtroom strategy—for Terms to come.