ÃÛÌÒÊÓƵ

What High Court's Tenn. Trans Care Ruling Means Nationally

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti, upholding a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors, is fairly limited in scope and closely tailored to the specific language of Tennessee's law, but it may have implications for challenges to similar laws in other states, say attorneys at Hall Render.

Justices Rewrite Rules For Challenging Enviro Agency Actions

Three recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings — Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, Oklahoma v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and EPA v. Calumet Shreveport Refining — form a jurisprudential watershed in administrative and environmental law, affirming statutory standing and venue provisions as the backbone of coherent judicial review, say attorneys at GableGotwals.

Series

My Opera And Baseball Careers Make Me A Better Lawyer

Though participating in opera and the world of professional baseball often pulls me away from the office, my avocations improve my legal career by helping me perform under scrutiny, prioritize team success, and maintain joy and perspective at work, says Adam Unger at Herrick Feinstein.

High Court ACA Ruling May Harm Preventative Care

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Braidwood last week, ruling that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services secretary has authority over an Affordable Care Act preventive care task force, risks harming the credibility of the task force and could open the door to politicians dictating clinical recommendations, says Michael Kolber at Manatt.

Opinion

Subject Matter Eligibility Test Should Return To Preemption

Subject matter eligibility has posed challenges for patentees due to courts' arbitrary and confusing reasoning, but adopting a two-part preemption test could align the applicant, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and the courts, says Manav Das at McDonnell Boehnen.

8 Ways Lawyers Can Protect The Rule Of Law In Their Work

Whether they are concerned with judicial independence, regulatory predictability or client confidence, lawyers can take specific meaningful actions on their own when traditional structures are too slow or too compromised to respond, says Angeli Patel at the Berkeley Center of Law and Business.

Kousisis Concurrence Maps FCA Defense To Anti-DEI Suits

Justice Clarence Thomas' recent concurrence in Kousisis v. U.S. lays out how federal funding recipients could use the high standard for materiality in government fraud cases to fight the U.S. Justice Department’s threatened False Claims Act suits against payees deviating from the administration’s anti-DEI policies, say attorneys at Miller & Chevalier.

Justices' Review Of Fluor May Alter Gov't Contractor Liability

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision to review Hencely v. Fluor, a case involving a soldier’s personal injury claims against a government contractor, suggests the justices could reconsider a long-standing test for determining whether contractors are shielded from state-tort liability, says Lisa Himes at Rogers Joseph.

Google Damages Ruling Offers Lessons For Testifying Experts

The Federal Circuit's recent decision in EcoFactor v. Google represents a shift in how courts evaluate expert testimony in patent cases, offering a practical guide for how litigators and testifying experts can refine their work, says Adam Rhoten at Secretariat.

Series

Law School's Missed Lessons: Communicating With Clients

Law school curricula often overlook client communication procedures, and those who actively teach this crucial facet of the practice can create exceptional client satisfaction and success, says Patrick Hanson at Wiggam Law.

One Year On, Davidson Holds Lessons On 'Health Halo' Claims

A year after the Ninth Circuit's Davidson v. Sprout Foods decision — which raised the bar for so-called health halo claims — food and beverage companies can draw insights from its finding, subsequently expanded on by other courts, that plaintiffs must be specific when alleging fraud in healthfulness marketing, say attorneys at Sidley.

Justices' NRC Ruling Raises New Regulatory Questions

In Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court avoided ruling on the NRC's authority to license private, temporary nuclear waste storage facilities — and this failure to reach the merits question creates new regulatory uncertainty where none had existed for decades, say attorneys at Holland & Knight.

Rocket Mortgage Appeal May Push Justices To Curb Classes

Should the U.S. Supreme Court agree to hear Alig v. Rocket Mortgage, the resulting decision could limit class sizes based on commonality under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Evidence as opposed to standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, say attorneys at Carr Maloney.

3 Judicial Approaches To Applying Loper Bright, 1 Year Later

In the year since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference in its Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, a few patterns have emerged in lower courts’ application of the precedent to determine whether agency actions are lawful, say attorneys at Husch Blackwell.

Trending At The PTAB: Shifts In Parallel Proceedings Strategy

Dynamics are changing between the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and federal courts, with two recent discretionary denials and one Federal Circuit decision offering takeaways for both patent owners and challengers navigating parallel proceedings, say attorneys at Finnegan.