Corporate Accountability

CAC: Pro-Corporate SCOTUS Decisions Yield More “Big Wins” for the Chamber

 

U.S. Chamber Watch
CAC: Pro-Corporate SCOTUS Decisions Yield More “Big Wins” for the Chamber
Posted by LLevenstein on May 18, 2011

 

The Constitutional Accountability Center (CAC) is keeping a close watch on the Chamber’s influence over the Supreme Court these days. Yesterday, the CAC called attention to two recent decisions in the Chamber’s favor, both of which they say “shield corporations from liability by making it more difficult for individuals to pursue claims against corporate wrongdoing” and “represent part of a disturbing trend of increased polarization on the Supreme Court in business cases.” These cases included Schindler Elevator Corp. v. Kirk and AT&T v. Concepcion.

Neil Weare, Litigation and Policy Counsel for CAC, explained why these decisions only bolster a previous study by the organization showing how the Chamber has seen more Supreme Court decisions go its way under the Roberts’ court than at any other time:

Not surprisingly, the Chamber’s success rate this term has now improved and, overall, the Roberts Court has still ruled for the Chamber far more than its predecessor Courts. Including yesterday’s decision, the Robert Court has now ruled 64% of the time in favor of Chamber positions since Alito joined the Court, compared to 56% during the stable Rehnquist Court, and just 43% during the last five years of the Burger Court.

Even more striking is the Chamber’s domination in cases decided by a 5-4 or 5-3 vote. There are more of these closely divided business cases in the Roberts Court than ever before, and the Chamber’s success rate in these cases is startling. Adding Schindler and Concepcion to our empirical study of the Chamber’s success before the Supreme Court, the Roberts Court has favored Chamber positions more than 75% of the time (16 of 21 cases) in close cases.

The U.S. Chamber: largest business influence over the Supreme Court, highest overall spender on Congressional lobbying, direct line into the White House, millions spent on electioneering communications, mostly for Republicans, and all with anonymous cash. As Weare ends his post, “Those are the facts.” Facts that deserve exposure as the Chamber’s secretly-funded shadow over Washington (and the country) grows larger and more ominous.

More from Corporate Accountability

Corporate Accountability
September 9, 2025

ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS—Fifth Circuit rejects petition challenging OCC authority to enforce national banking rules

Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw
The court distinguished the national banking regulatory regime from the SEC’s antifraud provision in Jarkesy and the...
Corporate Accountability
July 11, 2025

This Group’s Record in Front of the Roberts Court Is Mind-Boggling

Slate
In a provocative dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson recently called out her colleagues on the Supreme Court...
By: Ana Builes, Brian R. Frazelle
Corporate Accountability
July 2, 2025

Moneyed Interests Still Prevail at the Supreme Court (2024-2025 Term)

The Court Continues to Favor Corporations over Workers, Consumers, and the Environment.
By: Brian R. Frazelle, Ana Builes
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services

In Novartis v. Secretary United States Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional...
Corporate Accountability
January 28, 2025

Federal Deposit Insurance as Jarkesy Waiver

Yale Journal on Regulation
An argument lurking just beneath the surface in a pending Fifth Circuit case could stem...
Corporate Accountability
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services

In Boehringer Ingelheim v. Department of Health and Human Services, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered whether the Inflation Reduction Act’s Medicare drug price negotiation program is an unconstitutional taking...