We’ve been waiting for months.  And now, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has granted the SEC’s petition for rehearing of the court’s April 2014 decision that found that certain disclosure requirements of the conflict minerals rule violated the First Amendment.  The parties have been ordered to file supplemental briefs to discuss:

  • The effect of the American Meat Institute decision on the First Amendment ruling in this case.
  • The meaning of “purely factual and uncontroversial information”  in compelled commercial speech cases.
  • Whether information is “uncontroversial” is a question of fact or of law.

All of these points will be relevant when the court considers whether certain disclosure requirements in the conflict minerals rule should be found (again) to be unconstitutional as compelled commercial speech.   So, with this order for rehearing, there is still a chance that all of the disclosure requirements of the conflict minerals rule could apply to reporting companies.