Merck & Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
The industry's opposition to using the WAC also manifested itself as a First Amendment argument. See id. at 20,743 -48. The challengers argued that the WAC Disclosure Rule was compelled speech that violated the First Amendment. See id. at 20,743 -44. The forced disclosure, they maintained, did not pass muster under the intermediate scrutiny standard articulated by the Supreme Court in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York , 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980), or the more relaxed standard used in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel…
2Cases cited31 opinions
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1984
- United States v. Mead Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2001
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Food & Drug Administration v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2000
- Barnhart v. WaltonSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- Merck & Co., Inc. v. HHSCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2020
- Jilin Forest Indus. Jinqiao Flooring Grp. Co. v. United StatesUnited States Court of International Trade · 2023
- American Hospital Association v. AzarDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 2020
- Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection v. Townstone Financial, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 2023
- Earl v. The Boeing CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Texas · 2021
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.