So the fact that Walgreens and Amazon are not affected doesn't undermine your analysis?

Well, I'm not saying that it's not a fact on the other side.

What I'm saying is you have to run the analysis, and what you have to say is, all right, look, Hazeltine, you had two of the four factors.

Here you have all four.

The text of the law, which is rarely ever the case in a dormant commerce clause challenge.

It says on the face of it they're trying to protect locally operated pharmacies.

They've never made any argument about operated versus owned, but the only reasonable way to read that term is a pharmacy that is owned and operated in Arkansas.

So does discriminatory effect really work that well in the economy we have today? I know we have to apply it, but it's slippery.

What do you make of the, the, this new aspect of emergency litigation or interim litigation at the Supreme Court and potentially some of the criticism that we've seen from, say, you know, the three liberal Democratic appointees on the court? Any thoughts on that?

You're certainly right.

As you're questioning now, the emergency docket's been with us for a while, and it had been sort of slowly growing.

But I think you're right that in the first Trump administration, there was a, a, a really broad expansion in the docket.

You know, I'm not an expert on it, but I think it happened for a number of different reasons.

Part of it was the rise of nationwide injunctions and universal vacature under the APA.

Part of it was an expansion in state standing.

You know, what is it about having that Supreme Court practice at the top that helps the overall litigation practice of, you know, a major law firm?

So what defines suit at common law for purposes of the Seventh Amendment?

So I think it's an adjudication of a claimant law rather than equity.

In other words, I think when an agency determines liability, that is the sort of thing that triggers the Seventh Amendment.

And I don't think the agency then gets to say, but look, it's just non-binding or advisory and we'll let it hang out there.

I mean, these things have huge consequences.

We were branded an egregious lawbreaker, a willful and repeat violator, and told we had to pay the government $100 million.

That has a lot of consequences in the real world.

Rebuttal, Mr. Wall?

Mr. Wall?

Mr.

Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

The FCC imposed more than one hundred million dollars of civil penalties on AT&T and Verizon, and the companies had no way to demand a jury trial.

That's a straightforward violation of the Seventh Amendment and this Court's decision in Jarkasi.

The government's only answer is that the penalties weren't binding.

They were just invitations to pay one hundred million dollars if you want, and that's wrong for at least four reasons.

Wall.

Mr. Wall?

Mr.

Chief Justice, and may it please the Court, the FCC imposed more than one hundred million dollars of civil penalties on AT&T and Verizon, and the companies had no way to demand a jury trial.

That's a straightforward violation of the Seventh Amendment and this Court's decision in Jarkesy.

The government's only answer is that the penalties weren't binding.

They were just invitations to pay one hundred million dollars if you want, and that's wrong for at least four reasons.

First, the statute says that the FCC issues a charging document, considers the party's response, and then assesses and imposes penalties.

Wall.