National Council for Improved Health v. Shalala
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
MURPHY, Circuit Judge.
Plaintiffs, National Council for Improved Health (“NCIH”), Stanley Malstrom, and Clive J. Buchanan, bring a facial challenge to the constitutionality of 21 C.F.R. § 101.14, which requires sellers of dietary supplements to obtain Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) authorization before labeling supplements with “health claims.” 1 The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint, ruling that the health claims regulations did not violate the First Amendment. Although the district court reached the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, we conclude that plaintiffs do not have…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
- Younger v. HarrisSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Broadrick v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by44 opinions
- Brammer-Hoelter v. Twin Peaks Charter AcademyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2010
- Pearson v. ShalalaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1999
- Nutritional Health Alliance v. ShalalaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1998
- Meyers v. Pfizer, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2014
- Lockwood v. Conagra Foods, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2009
39 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.