PolicyLink’s Post

The dominant food system is entrenched. We cannot depend on consumer choice alone to provoke change. Our roles as workers, advocates, and community members offer other effective avenues we can take to organize for a just food system – but corporate secrecy and disinformation make it hard to build power. Through movement-oriented litigation, FarmSTAND protects the public’s right to know the truth behind our food in order to hold corporations and the government accountable. Learn more about how FarmSTAND protects whistleblowers, exposes corporate lies, holds government accountable, and much more: https://lnkd.in/eWYx9bVn

Well settled law changes all the time. https://lnkd.in/gah-PTD4

"How can one balance the need for national security and for civil servants not to enter into political debate with the need to be able to speak up regarding something terribly important?" Interesting discussion on Josie Stewart's case and whistleblowing in the civil service at a particularly fabulous Protect Legal Support Network (“LSN”) quarterly round up last week. Thank you to A&O Shearman (formerly Allen & Overy) for hosting so wonderfully! Chatham House Rule as ever but other topics covered included: 1/ Expanding the scope of who is protected by PIDA — Protect’s intervention in an upcoming EAT appeal, arguing that trustees ought to have worker status for the purposes of whistleblowing protection, relying on Gilham v MoJ [2019] UKSC 44. 2/ The impact of Wicked Vision v Rice [2024] EAT 29 and how to square it (or not) with Timis v Osipov (Protect intervening) [2018] EWCA Civ 232. (For more on that, see my last post / ELA Briefing article!) 3/ Different interpretations of Malik v Cenkos Securities Plc UKEAT/0100/17/RN / Royal Mail Group Ltd v Jhuti [2019] UKSC 55 — including the EAT's recent findings in William v Lewisham & Greenwich NHS Trust [2024] EAT 58 — how should tribunals approach the question of ‘tainted information’? (For more on this, see May Martin and Bethan Davies' brilliant article in this month's ELA Briefing.) Really lovely to meet some new LSN members and catch up with former Protect colleagues. I cannot recommend joining Protect’s LSN enough. Among other things, after spending the day engaged in an adversarial process, it is a nice counter to spend the evening in a room of friendly faces and constructive discussion. For more of the same, come to the next one!  #whistleblowing

🎤 Peter Leonard BL and presenter of The Fifth Court will discuss the theme "Unravelling the #whistleblower's role" at the #Regulatory #Investigations Conference in March, focusing on: - Dissection of #protected #disclosures (Amendment) Act 2022 and how it affects the Principal Act (Protected Disclosures Act 2014). - Explainer of how the 2022 act implements Ireland’s obligations under EU Directive 2019/1937. - Overview of recent case law, particularly the Supreme Court’s decision in Baranya v Rosderra Irish Meats Group Limited [2021]. - What constitutes ‘relevant #wrongdoings’? - Impact on ‘medium sized companies’.  - Understanding the role of the Protected Disclosure Commissioner. - Examination of the burden of proof in allegations of #penalisation. - Overview of extra protections in respect of disclosures to ensure #anonymity is preserved. Learn more and register to join the #onlineconference here: https://lnkd.in/e7xapYw5

Federal courts and NAD are coming to different conclusions on whether disclosures on the back of packages can effectively qualify claims that appear on the front of the packages. Courts in the Ninth Circuit have held that disclosures on the back of a package can help to qualify a claim on the front, as long as that claim is ambiguous, as opposed to false. NAD, on the other hand, tends to think those disclosures are too far-removed to be effective. Gonzalo Mon and John Villafranco analyze cases and outcomes reviewed by both the NAD and Ninth Circuit Courts, and touch on who the FTC will side with on these package disclosure cases. https://lnkd.in/emM62cdB #AdvertisingLaw #NAD #FTC #ConsumerProtection

from HuffPost: The Truly Devastating Power Grab You're Missing In The Biden Debate Fiasco   Joe Biden’s addled, halting debate performance on Thursday night is getting a lot of media attention today. That’s fine, given the profound questions it raises about his abilities to conduct a successful campaign. But a Supreme Court decision Friday morning gutting federal regulatory power isn’t getting nearly as much attention. That’s not fine, given the profound ways it could affect everyday Americans. Friday’s ruling upended what’s called the “Chevron doctrine,” a long-standing legal principle that gave federal agencies broad discretion to interpret the instructions Congress hands them for writing rules and regulations. That might sound obscure or technical. It isn’t. In fact, it’s hard to overstate how important Chevron has been to the basic functioning of government, for reasons my HuffPost colleague Paul Blumenthal has spelled out. When Congress writes laws to guarantee clean drinking water, for example, or to protect consumers from fraud, those instructions will inevitably leave executive branch agencies room for interpretation ― in part, because lawmakers recognize they don’t really have enough expertise or clairvoyance to get that detailed. Under the Chevron doctrine, which dates back to a 1984 Supreme Court ruling involving the Chevron oil company, agencies had wide leeway to interpret lawmakers’ instructions and proceed accordingly. Those interpretations could be challenged in court, but under Chevron, judges would defer to agencies as long as they thought the agencies were being “reasonable.” Chevron has been the foundation for all kinds of rules that affect everyday life. Emission limits on vehicles, safety standards for food and drugs, guidelines for broadband access ― in all of these instances and many, many others, the agencies writing the rules used the authority they got from Chevron. Now that authority is gone. The question is what effects the decision will have ― and what reaction, if any, it will provoke from the voters. 

In the SCOTUS order today, five new grants, with two consolidated: 23-929 MONSALVO VELAZQUEZ, HUGO A. V. GARLAND, ATT'Y GEN.  The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. Whether, when a noncitizen's voluntary-departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, a motion to reopen filed the next business day is sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart under 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)(1). 23-1002 ) HEWITT, TONY R. V. UNITED STATES ) 23-1150 ) DUFFEY, COREY D., ET AL. V. UNITED STATES The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. Whether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the act’s enactment, when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the act’s enactment. 23-1038 FDA V. WAGES AND WHITE LION, ET AL. Whether the court of appeals erred in setting aside the Food and Drug Administration’s orders denying respondents’ applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products as arbitrary and capricious. 23-1122 FREE SPEECH COALITION, ET AL. V. PAXTON, ATT'Y GEN. OF TX  The petitions for writs of certiorari are granted.  Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review, instead of strict scrutiny, to a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech. #CotterOnCourt #SupremeCourt

As other countries champion a return to having “experts” in the bureaucracy, the US Supreme Court's recent decision to limit the power of federal agencies to enact regulations stings. This could impact everything from healthcare to public health and safety. Thousands of regulations on the environment, health, worker safety, etc. could be weakened or eliminated. This might cause a litigation surge, so expect more legal challenges to existing regulations, creating uncertainty for businesses. The decision weakens the "Chevron deference" standard, giving courts more power to strike down regulations previously upheld due to agency expertise. How will this decision impact specific health regulations? What new regulatory approaches are needed to ensure public safety and still allow innovation/experimentation? #HealthCare #PolicyResearch #Regulations #SupremeCourt

Navigating multiple legislation can be a minefield. But don't worry, we've got you covered! Head over to our new Legislative Support hub where you can read about upcoming and current legislation, all in one place. Get your hands on helpful tools and advice, available to help you feel confident and prepared ahead of legislative changes. 👉 https://bit.ly/47HqhZZ #BidfoodUK #Legislation #LegislativeSupport

A status conference for the toxic baby food MDL is being held today and shaping up to be a contentious battleground. Judge Corley will likely set the initial parameters, but both the plaintiffs and defendants are girding for an intense legal showdown. The plaintiffs are pushing hard to fast-track early bellwether trials, eager to build momentum. In contrast, the defendants will employ every delaying tactic at their disposal, hoping to prolong the proceedings. However, this strategy could backfire, as the scientific evidence linking these baby foods to toxic heavy metal contamination appears to be mounting by the day. The defendants may be better served by attempting to reach a settlement before the situation spirals further out of their control and explodes in their faces. New legislation has been proposed in both houses of Congress aimed at addressing ongoing concerns about toxic metals in baby food. #TortLeadGeneration #GetNewClients #FindMissingClients #KnowYourClaimants #PersonalityProfileHelps