No. 24-564

QYK Brands LLC, dba Glowyy v. Federal Trade Commission

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2024-11-20
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: administrative-law agency-deference chevron-doctrine federal-trade-commission judicial-review summary-judgment
Latest Conference: 2025-02-21
Question Presented (from Petition)

In Loper Light Enterprises v. Raimondo, 144 S. Ct. 2244 (2024), this Court overturned one of the foundational tenets of administrative law: a common law judicial doctrine that guided judges for forty years and affected the outcome of over 18,000 federal judicial opinions, the Chevron doctrine. This petition presents for review a summary judgment decision that hinged on the now-abandoned Chevron precedent. Petitioners respectfully request this Court to issue a GVR order (grant, reverse, and remand order) directing the district court that issued the summary judgment and the Ninth Circuit that affirmed to reconsider their decisions based on Loper Light.

Without the Chevron doctrine's judicially mandated deference, actions and interpretations of federal agencies must now be scrutinized in a new light, along with any judicial opinion which plainly defers to agency judgment without attempting to use its own. The question presented is: Whether in the post-Chevron era, the district court can issue a permanent lifetime ban through summary judgment on a company for alleged violations of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act and the Federal Trade Commission's Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise Rule (MITOR) by simply deferring to the FTC's own interpretation of MITOR and its application?

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether in the post-Chevron era, a district court can issue a permanent lifetime ban through summary judgment by deferring to the FTC's interpretation of MITOR

Docket Entries

2025-02-24
Petition DENIED.
2025-02-05
Reply of QYK Brands LLC, dba Glowyy, et al. submitted.
2025-02-05
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
2025-02-05
Reply of petitioners QYK Brands LLC, dba Glowyy, et al. filed. (Distributed)
2025-01-17
Brief of Federal Trade Commission in opposition submitted.
2025-01-17
Brief of respondent Federal Trade Commission in opposition filed.
2024-12-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 21, 2025.
2024-12-10
Motion of Federal Trade Commission for an extension of time submitted.
2024-12-10
Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 20, 2024 to January 21, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-11-18
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 20, 2024)
2024-08-21
Application (24A191) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until November 17, 2024.
2024-08-16
Application (24A191) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 18, 2024 to November 17, 2024, submitted to Justice Kagan.

Attorneys

Federal Trade Commission
Elizabeth B. PrelogarSolicitor General, Respondent
Sarah M. HarrisActing Solicitor General, Respondent
QYK Brands LLC, dba Glowyy, et al.
Michael BazylerFowler School of Law, Chapman University, Petitioner