Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

QYK Brands LLC, dba Glowyy v. Federal Trade Commission

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 22-55446 · judgment April 9, 2024


Certiorari denied · February 24, 2025
Pre-decision estimate: 4% cert probability

Before the decision, roughly the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and a business petitioner.

Question presented

In Loper Bright 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.1 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 Bright. 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 1 The Chevron doctrine, a foundational principle of U.S. administrative law, was established in the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). In Chevron, the Court set forth a two-step test for determining when courts should defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute it administers.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Michael Bazyler
Wellman & Warren,LLP

For respondent
Sarah M. Harris
Acting Solicitor General

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Linked docket
24A191

Proceedings

  1. Feb 24 2025
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Feb 05 2025
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/21/2025.
  3. Feb 05 2025
    Reply of petitioners QYK Brands LLC, dba Glowyy, et al. filed. (Distributed)
  4. Jan 17 2025
    Brief of respondent Federal Trade Commission in opposition filed.
  5. Dec 12 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 21, 2025.
  6. Dec 10 2024
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 20, 2024 to January 21, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
  7. Nov 18 2024
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 20, 2024)
  8. Aug 21 2024
    Application (24A191) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until November 17, 2024.
  9. Aug 16 2024
    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.