1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Supreme Court Vacates and Remands D.C. Circuit’s Decision in Broadview Solar Case in Light of Chevron Ruling

Supreme Court Vacates and Remands D.C. Circuit’s Decision in Broadview Solar Case in Light of Chevron Ruling

Client Alert | 1 min read | 07.03.24

In one of the first rulings applying Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Supreme Court on Tuesday vacated and remanded the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Solar Energy Industries Association v. FERC for further consideration.

The case, otherwise known as Broadview Solar, involves the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (“FERC”) interpretation of “qualifying facility” (“QF”) under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978 (“PURPA”). While PURPA permits certain renewable energy generators with a power production capacity of 80 MW or less to qualify for benefits, such as an exemption from certain filing obligations and a requirement that electric utilities must purchase their output in non-RTO regions, the Commission concluded in Broadview Solar that a solar and battery facility with a 160 MW gross capacity was nonetheless a QF under PURPA because the project was physically limited to providing 80 MW of power to the grid at any given time.

The D.C. Circuit affirmed FERC’s order on appeal, but on remand must now review the case without deferring to FERC’s interpretation. It will be important to watch this case closely, particularly for those renewable generators that have relied on or planned to rely on Broadview Solar in qualifying for QF status. 

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights