McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp..
The Supreme Court decided that district courts are not bound by agency interpretations of statutes in civil enforcement proceedings under the Hobbs Act. The case involved McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates suing McKesson Corp. for TCPA violations. The Court reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision, emphasizing the district court's role in independently determining statutory interpretations.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp..
The Court held that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts to an agency's interpretation of a statute in civil enforcement proceedings.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Administrative Law is relevant to McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.
The case addresses the constitutional limits on agency authority and the role of district courts in interpreting statutes independently of agency orders.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency's interpretation of a statute.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.
The case involves the power of courts to review and interpret the law independently of agency interpretations, which is a core aspect of judicial review.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)District courts must independently determine the law's meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation while affording appropriate respect to the agency's interpretation.
-
Why Remedies and Relief is relevant to McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp.
The decision discusses the scope of relief that district courts can provide, particularly in terms of not being bound by agency orders in enforcement proceedings.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)When a district court disagrees with an agency's statutory interpretation in an enforcement proceeding, it determines the defendant's liability under the correct interpretation of the statute but does not issue a declaratory judgment 'determining the validity' of the agency order.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp. that support the summary and concepts above.
The Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency's interpretation of a statute.
District courts must independently determine the law's meaning under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation.
The availability of pre-enforcement review does not ordinarily preclude judicial review in enforcement proceedings.
