Skip to main content

No. 23-1226October Term 2024Decided Jun 20, 2025

Docket 23-1226October Term 2024 (2024–2025)

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
Case Accepted
Arguments HeardJan 21, 2025
Decision ReleasedJun 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