Published
July 06, 2026
Courtroom advocacy is one of the most powerful ways the U.S. Chamber of Commerce serves the business community — and our Litigation Center continues to deliver in the cases that matter most. We just closed out another Supreme Court Term with significant wins for American businesses, continuing our mission to ensure that both government power and the trial bar remain firmly within constitutional and statutory limits.
The Litigation Center helped secure 12 victories this Term in cases where we filed amicus briefs. Below, we highlight key decisions that advance two fundamental principles: protecting the Constitution's separation of powers and reinforcing meaningful limits on liability. Together, these victories bring greater regulatory and litigation certainty—while lowering costs for businesses and their customers.
-
12
Supreme Court victories secured
Defending the Constitution’s Separation of Powers
In three cases this Term, we successfully defended separation-of-powers principles that are essential to accountable governance and regulatory certainty.
In Learning Resources v. Trump, the Court held that the president lacks authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. This ruling reinforces the Founders’ deliberate decision to vest taxing authority in Congress, and to permit delegation to the president only when Congress speaks clearly and imposes meaningful limits. By setting those boundaries, the decision promotes stability and transparency in trade policy.
In Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, the Court clarified the scope of the president’s authority to remove senior officials leading the FTC and the Federal Reserve. In Slaughter, the Court held that the president retains broad constitutional authority to remove members of multimember commissions exercising executive authority, such as the FTC. By contrast, in Cook, the Court recognized the Federal Reserve’s unique institutional role and longstanding independence from political control, holding that the president must establish cause to remove a member of the Board of Governors, subject to judicial review. In these decisions, the Court struck a careful balance—demanding robust administrative accountability while protecting the institutional independence that businesses rely on for steady economic policy.
Enforcing Limits on Liability
In three more cases, we countered the plaintiffs’ bar by defending a simple, core principle: liability must be grounded in what Congress wrote—not by what lawyers or courts wish it wrote. In each of these cases, the U.S. Chamber filed an amicus brief supporting Supreme Court review, followed by another amicus brief on the merits.
Federal preemption of state law is critically important to our members. The Court issued a helpful preemption decision in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, holding 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. The ruling protects manufacturers from crippling state tort claims when they are complying with federal law, and should be helpful to many businesses that are subject to federal laws containing similar language.
The Court likewise confirmed that where Congress has not expressly authorized private suits, courts cannot step in to create them. In FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, the Court 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. Similarly, in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Doe, the Courtruled that 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. This is a significant win for companies that have faced enormous costs, reputational risk, and settlement pressure from novel and expansive liability theories. Combined, these three victories will help ensure that businesses do not face exposure beyond what Congress has provided.
The Litigation Center is the preeminent legal advocate for the business community. Beyond our advocacy in the Supreme Court, the Litigation Center files amicus briefs in state and federal courts across the country. Our briefs go beyond the facts of the case to present the broader perspective of American business—whether it’s advocating for limits on False Claims Act and wiretap litigation, to explaining how courts should review administrative action after Loper Bright, to stemming the tide on novel public nuisance liability theories and abusive class actions.
The Litigation Center also brings lawsuits on behalf of U.S. Chamber members to challenge burdensome laws and regulations. We recently won our cases against the Federal Trade Commission’s Hart-Scott-Rodino Act Rule and the Federal Communication Commission’s Digital Discrimination Rule, adding to a long list of victories that cabin unlawful administrative action. And as federal agencies undertake deregulatory measures, we intervene in litigation to help defend pro-business rules and ensure a robust legal defense after changes in Administration. Whatever the context, the Litigation Center is showing up for American business—and delivering results.
Fighting for business in the courts
Founded in 1977, the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center fights for business at every level of the U.S. judicial system, on virtually every issue affecting business, including class actions and arbitration, labor and employment, energy and environment, securities and corporate governance, financial regulation, free speech, preemption, government contracts, and criminal law.
About the author
Daryl Joseffer
Daryl Joseffer is president at the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, the litigation arm of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. A former principal deputy solicitor general, Joseffer has argued 12 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court and briefed many more. He has argued dozens of appeals in other courts across the country.
