No. 23-1226October Term 2024Decided Jun 20, 2025
McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc., Petitioner v. McKesson Corporation, et al.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Hobbs Act does not require federal district courts to automatically accept the Federal Communication Commission's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act during enforcement proceedings.
Case status
- Current stage
- Decided
- Latest event
- Decision released Jun 20, 2025
- What it's about
The Supreme Court ruled that the Hobbs Act does not require federal district courts to automatically accept the Federal Communication Commission's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act during enforcement proceedings. The decision clarifies that district courts retain the authority to independently review whether an agency's interpretation of a statute is correct.
Question presented
Does the Hobbs Act require a federal district court to accept the Federal Communication Commission’s legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act?
- Case path
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit / Decision released Jun 20, 2025
- Area
Administrative Law
Related cases




Grounding
- Grounding
- Primary-source trail available.
- Note
- Plain-English explainer. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.
- Checked
- Mar 30, 2026
- Method
- Methodology
Primary materials8
Supreme Court docket 23-1226
docket | Mar 30, 2026
Primary case document
Supreme Court document | Mar 30, 2026
CourtListener docket record
docket | Mar 30, 2026
Questions Presented
brief | Mar 8, 2026
opinion
opinion | Jun 20, 2025
Opinion
opinion | Jun 20, 2025
Oral Arguments - McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp.
audio | Jan 21, 2025
Petition
brief | May 17, 2024