Since December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has been considering (again) the decision it reached previously about the constitutionality of the Conflict Minerals Rule. In an August 18, 2015 order, the Court of Appeals confirmed its earlier ruling that the Conflict Minerals Rule violates the First Amendment to … Continue Reading
April 11, 2014 – April 18, 2014 The summaries provided in this Weekly Recap do not necessarily represent the views of Squire Sanders (US) LLP and should not be deemed to be endorsements of them. The Recap is intended to be a compilation of articles and events to encourage discussion within the conflict minerals community and to keep our … Continue Reading
As you recall, shortly after the SEC issued the Conflict Minerals Rule, several trade groups challenged the rule in federal court. The trade groups challenged the SECs cost-benefit analysis, questioned the SECs discretionary choices, and claimed that certain requirements in the rule violate the First Amendment. Today, in a 2-1 decision, the D.C. Court of Appeals sided with the … Continue Reading
On Tuesday, January 7, 2014, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit heard oral arguments in the challenge to the conflict minerals rule. Those attending the arguments observed the court’s skepticism with the rule, specifically from the two conservative judges on the panel, David Sentelle and A. Raymond Randolph, appointees of … Continue Reading
