Expert Analysis

• Questions Remain After Justices' Narrow E-Rate FCA Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wisconsin Bell, holding that requests for reimbursement from the Federal Communications Commission's E-Rate program are subject to False Claims Act liability, resolves one important question but leaves several others open, says Jason Neal at HWG.

• Opinion

  Attorneys Must Act Now To Protect Judicial Independence

  

  Given the Trump administration's recent moves threatening the independence of the judiciary, including efforts to impeach judges who ruled against executive actions, lawyers must protect the rule of law and resist attempts to dilute the judicial branch’s authority, says attorney Bhavleen Sabharwal.

• Colo. Anti-SLAPP Cases Highlight Dismiss Standard Disparity

  

  A pair of recent decisions from the Colorado Court of Appeals highlights two disparate standards for courts evaluating anti-SLAPP motions: one that requires a court to accept the plaintiff's evidence as true and another that allows the court to assess its merits, says Jacob Hollars at Spencer Fane.

• Appealing An Interlocutory Order On Insurer Duty To Defend

  

  A recent First Circuit decision on a motion regarding an insurer's duty to defend underlying litigation highlights how policyholders may be able to pursue immediate appeals of interlocutory orders, especially in light of other circuit courts' stances on this issue, say attorneys at Anderson Kill.

• Rethinking 'No Comment' For Clients Facing Public Crises

  

  “No comment” is no longer a cost-free or even a viable public communications strategy for companies in crisis, and counsel must tailor their guidance based on a variety of competing factors to help clients emerge successfully, says Robert Bowers at Moore & Van Allen.

• Del. Supreme Court TripAdvisor Ruling May Limit 'MFW Creep'

  

  The Delaware Supreme Court's recent Maffei v. Palkon ruling regarding TripAdvisor's proposed reincorporation to Nevada potentially signals a turning point in the trend of expanding the protections from Kahn v. M&F Worldwide to other types of transactions, says Andrew J. Haile at Elon University.

• 9th Circ. Draws The Line On Software As A Derivative Work

  

  The Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Oracle International v. Rimini Street clarifies the meaning of derivative work under the Copyright Act, and when a work based upon a preexisting item doesn't constitute a derivative, says John Poulos at Norton Rose.

• As Failure-To-Warn Preemption Wanes, Justices May Weigh In

  

  Federal preemption of state failure-to-warn claims has long been a powerful defense in strict liability tort cases, but is now under attack in litigation over the weedkiller Roundup and other products — so the scope and application of preemption may require clarification by the U.S. Supreme Court, says Michael Sena at Segal McCambridge.

• How Design Thinking Can Help Lawyers Find Purpose In Work

  

  Lawyers everywhere are feeling overwhelmed amid mass government layoffs, increasing political instability and a justice system stretched to its limits — but a design-thinking framework can help attorneys navigate this uncertainty and find meaning in their work, say law professors at the University of Michigan.

• Justices' Certiorari Denial Leaves Interstate Tax Questions

  

  Since the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to review a Philadelphia resident’s claim that her Delaware state income taxes should be credited against her city wage tax liabilities, constitutional questions about state and local tax distinctions linger, and some states may continue to apply Supreme Court precedent differently, say attorneys at Dentons.

• Trending At The PTAB: Insights From 2024 Fed. Circ. Statistics

  

  Looking at stats from the Federal Circuit's decisions in 219 Patent Trial and Appeal Board appeals last year sheds light on potential trends and strategy considerations that could improve appeals' chances of success, say attorneys at Finnegan.

• Will Independent Federal Agencies Remain Independent?

  

  For 90 years, members of multimember independent federal agencies have relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1935 ruling in Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. establishing the security of their positions — but as the Trump administration attempts to overturn this understanding, it is unclear how the high court will respond, says Harvey Reiter at Stinson.

• High Court Sentencing Case Presents Legal Fork In The Road

  

  On Feb. 25, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in Esteras v. U.S. about the factors trial courts may consider when imposing a sentence of imprisonment after revoking supervised release, and the justices’ eventual decision may prioritize either discretion or originalism, says Michael Freedman at The Freedman Firm.

• Del. Justices' D&O Ruling Clarifies 'Related' Claim Analysis

  

  In its recent decision in the Alexion Pharmaceuticals coverage case, the Delaware Supreme Court adopted a "meaningful linkage" standard for relatedness analysis, providing further guidance to Delaware policyholders on how to navigate those directors and officers insurance disputes, say attorneys at Hunton.

• Class Actions At The Circuit Courts: February Lessons

  

  In this month's review of class action appeals, Mitchell Engel at Shook Hardy discusses five federal appellate court class certification decisions and identifies practice tips from cases involving breach of life insurance contracts, constitutional violations of inmates and more.