The Supreme Court dismissed Facebook Inc.'s petition against Amalgamated Bank on Nov. 22, 2024, issuing a rare "dismissed as improvidently granted" ruling that abruptly ended the case without reaching the merits. The brief per curiam decision came just 16 days after oral arguments were heard on Nov. 6, 2024.
The case, *Facebook, Inc. v. Amalgamated Bank* (No. 23-980), originated from a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision favoring Amalgamated Bank. The high court's dismissal leaves that lower court ruling intact, as reported at 87 F.4th 934.
A dismissal as improvidently granted, commonly known as a "DIG," is an uncommon procedural move by the Supreme Court. It occurs when the justices determine after briefing and argument that they should not have agreed to hear the case in the first place. Such dismissals effectively treat the grant of certiorari as if it never happened, leaving the lower court's decision undisturbed.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case initially suggested the justices viewed the legal questions as sufficiently important to warrant review. Facebook had petitioned the court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's ruling, but the specific legal issues at stake were not detailed in the brief per curiam order.
Oral arguments in the case featured prominent Supreme Court practitioners. Kannon K. Shanmugam of Williams & Connolly argued for Facebook, supported by a team including William T. Marks, Matteo Godi, Audra J. Soloway, and others. Kevin K. Russell represented Amalgamated Bank, with assistance from Daniel H. Woofter, Jason C. Davis, and additional counsel.
The case also drew federal government involvement, with the Solicitor General's office participating as amicus curiae. Kevin J. Barber argued for the United States, urging affirmance of the lower court decision. The government's brief was filed by Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and Deputy Solicitor General Stewart, along with other Justice Department attorneys.
Business interests also weighed in through amicus briefs. The Chamber of Commerce of the United States and other organizations filed briefs urging reversal of the Ninth Circuit decision, represented by Judson O. Littleton.
The timing of the dismissal is notable. The court heard arguments on Nov. 6 and issued its dismissal order on Nov. 22, a relatively quick turnaround that suggests the justices may have reached consensus shortly after oral arguments that the case was not suitable for Supreme Court review.
DIG orders can result from various factors. Sometimes the justices conclude the case presents issues that are not as legally significant as initially perceived. Other times, factual developments or changes in circumstances may make the case a poor vehicle for establishing legal precedent. Occasionally, the court discovers that the legal question presented was not properly preserved below or that the case lacks the adversarial posture necessary for effective judicial resolution.
For Facebook, the dismissal represents a setback in its effort to overturn an adverse Ninth Circuit ruling. The company had likely hoped to secure a favorable Supreme Court precedent that could have broader implications for similar cases. Instead, the underlying Ninth Circuit decision remains good law within that jurisdiction.
Amalgamated Bank, meanwhile, benefits from the status quo. The bank successfully defended against Facebook's challenge in the Ninth Circuit, and that victory now stands without further appellate review. The bank's legal team, led by Kevin Russell, effectively persuaded the Supreme Court that the case was not worthy of the court's attention.
The dismissal also affects the broader legal landscape surrounding the issues raised in the case. While the specific legal questions remain unclear from the brief order, the Supreme Court's decision not to address them means lower courts will continue to operate without definitive high court guidance on these matters.
The case was assigned number 23-980 on the Supreme Court's docket, indicating it was among the petitions filed during the court's 2023 term. The court's preliminary print notice indicates the official report will be published in Volume 604 of the U.S. Reports.
Supreme Court dismissals as improvidently granted are relatively rare, making this outcome notable in the court's jurisprudence. When the court does issue such dismissals, they typically generate interest among legal practitioners who study the court's case selection process and attempt to understand what factors led the justices to conclude the case was inappropriate for review.
The dismissal effectively closes this chapter of litigation between Facebook and Amalgamated Bank, at least at the Supreme Court level. The Ninth Circuit's decision in favor of Amalgamated Bank remains the final word on the legal dispute, and Facebook's options for further appellate review are now exhausted.