ÃÛÌÒÊÓƵ

Expert Analysis

• High Court Cert Spotlights Varying Tests For Federal Removal

  

  A recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to review Chevron v. Plaquemines Parish, a case involving the federal officer removal statute, highlights three other recent circuit court decisions raising federal removal questions, and serves as a reminder that defendants are the masters of removal actions, says Varun Aery at Hollingsworth.

• Rule 23 Class Certification Matters In Settlements, Too

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Trump v. CASA Inc. highlighted requirements for certifying classes for litigation in federal court, but counsel must also understand how Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may affect certifying classes for settlement purposes, say attorneys at Sidley.

• Contract Disputes Recap: Privity, Pressure, Procedural Traps

  

  Three recent decisions from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals, the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Court of Federal Claims offer fresh lessons for contractors navigating the procedural edge of Contract Disputes Act litigation, says Zachary Jacobson at Seyfarth.

• Series

  Playing Baseball Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Playing baseball in college, and now Wiffle ball in a local league, has taught me that teamwork, mental endurance and emotional intelligence are not only important to success in the sport, but also to success as a trial attorney, says Kevan Dorsey at Swift Currie.

• 3rd Circ. Bias Ruling Offers Safety Policy Exception Lessons

  

  The Third Circuit's decision in Smith v. City of Atlantic City, partially reinstating a religious bias suit over a policy requiring firefighters to be clean-shaven, cautions employers on the legal risk of including practical or discretionary exceptions in safety procedures, say Joseph Quinn and Mark Schaeffer at Cozen O'Connor.

• APA Relief May Blunt Justices' Universal Injunction Ruling

  

  The Administrative Procedure Act’s avenue for universal preliminary relief seems to hold the most promise for neutralizing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA to limit federal district courts' nationally applicable orders, say attorneys at Crowell.

• Opinion

  Prosecutors' Duty To Justice Sometimes Demands Mea Culpa

  

  Two recent cases — U.S. v. Lucas and U.S. v. Echavarria — demonstrate that prosecutors’ special ethical duty to seek justice can sometimes be in tension with other obligations and incentives, but it nonetheless requires them to concede their mistakes in the interests of justice, say Eastern District of Texas law clerk Ian Stephens and Texas A&M University law professor Jemila Lea.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: Skillful Persuasion

  

  In many ways, law school teaches us how to argue, but when the ultimate goal is to get your client what they want, being persuasive through preparation and humility is the more likely key to success, says Michael Friedland at Friedland Cianfrani.

• How NY Appeals Ruling Alters Employers' Sex Abuse Liability

  

  In Nellenback v. Madison County, the New York Court of Appeals arguably reset the evidentiary threshold in sexual abuse cases involving employer liability, countering lower court decisions that allowed evidence of the length of the undiscovered abuse to substitute as notice of an employee's dangerous propensity, say attorneys at Hurwitz Fine.

• Fed. Circ. Ingenico Ruling Pivotal For IPR Estoppel Landscape

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Ingenico v. Ioengine brings long-awaited clarity to the scope of inter partes review estoppel, confirming that a patent challenger is not precluded from relying on the same or substantially similar prior art in both IPR and district court proceedings, so long as it is used to support a different invalidity theory, say attorneys at Irwin IP.

• Litigation Inspiration: How To Respond After A Loss

  

  Every litigator loses a case now and then, and the sting of that loss can become a medicine that strengthens or a poison that corrodes, depending on how the attorney responds, says Bennett Rawicki at Hilgers Graben.

• Justices' Resentencing Ruling Fortifies First Step Act Tools

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Hewitt v. U.S. ruling clarifies that resentencing after vacatur must reflect the law in effect at the time of the new sentencing, ultimately strengthening the strategic tools available to defense attorneys under the First Step Act, says Benson Varghese at Varghese Summersett.

• The Metamorphosis Of The Major Questions Doctrine

  

  The so-called major questions doctrine arose as a counterweight to Chevron deference over the past few decades, but invocations of the doctrine have persisted in the year since Chevron was overturned, suggesting it still has a role to play in reining in agency overreach, say attorneys at Crowell & Moring.

• Protecting Workers Amid High Court-EEOC Trans Rights Rift

  

  In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services and U.S. v. Skrmetti, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that Title VII protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, so employers should still protect against such discrimination despite the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's unclear position, says Ally Coll at the Purple Method.

• What 9th Circ. Ruling Shows About Rebutting SEC Comments

  

  The Ninth Circuit's June opinion in Pino v. Cardone Capital suggests that a company's lack of pushback to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission comment may be evidence of its state of mind for evaluating potential liability, meaning companies should consider including additional disclosure in SEC response letters, say attorneys at Barnes & Thornburg.