Expert Analysis

• The Deep Split Over Mandatory Detention, And What's Next

  

  The government’s mandatory detention policy for noncitizens who entered the U.S. without inspection has led to a spate of decisions this year, with nine circuits rejecting the government's reading of the Immigration and Nationality Act against two that have accepted it, making the issue ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review, says attorney Kemal Hepsen.

• Intersecting Investigation Risks Loom In Next Congress

  

  Taken together, two July D.C. Circuit decisions and a recent U.S. Department of Justice opinion on executive privilege may affect the procedural defenses and privilege protections available to targets of oversight in the upcoming Congress, and companies should begin preparing now, say attorneys at WilmerHale.

• Vanda Ruling Offers New Guide To Generic Labeling Disputes

  

  The D.C. Circuit's recent decision in Vanda Pharmaceuticals v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration is significant for its guidance on when generic-drug labeling remains sufficiently similar to brand labeling and when a difference requires a statutory exception, says Shashank Upadhye at Upadhye Tang.

• 9th Circ. Comet Ruling Spotlights Trade Secret Proof Burdens

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision to vacate a $40 million verdict awarded to Comet Technologies in its trade secret dispute with XP Power underscores how the burden of proof differs between federal and state law, giving litigants a fresh perspective on several issues, including how a jury should be instructed, say attorneys at Cooley.

• Attorneys Using AI May Have Ethical Duty To Redact Docs

  

  The trajectory of legal ethics guidance in recent years strongly suggests that as redaction technology becomes more accessible, the failure to use it when uploading highly confidential materials into artificial intelligence tools will become increasingly difficult to defend as reasonable, say attorneys at Lewis Brisbois.

• Minn. Ruling Expands Insureds' Right To Independent Counsel

  

  If upheld on appeal, a recent decision by a Minnesota appellate court — Fabyanske Westra Hart & Thomson v. Western National Mutual Insurance — will give Minnesota policyholders a stronger basis to demand independent counsel when an insurer accepts a defense under a reservation of rights, say attorneys at Stoel Rives.

• Series

  Juggling And Unicycling Make Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Because I juggle (sometimes with fire) and ride the unicycle, friends and family used to joke that I should join the circus, but I pursued the practice of law instead and learned that my hobbies benefit my profession in several important ways, says Morgan Eddy at Smith Currie.

• The Future Of DOL Judge Removal Challenges After Slaughter

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Trump v. Slaughter calls into question whether U.S. Department of Labor administrative law judges exercising significant governmental authority remain insulated from presidential removal, but the answer depends on the governing statute, its severability provisions and other factors, says Mark Ishu at Conn Maciel.

• DOJ Executive Privilege Opinion Portends 3rd-Party Dilemmas

  

  The recent opinion from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluding that executive privilege can shield the president's communications with private advisers may lead to interbranch disputes, and companies must come up with a response plan now before they’re caught in the middle, say attorneys at Gibson Dunn.

• 2nd Circ. Ruling Lays Out Administrative Right-Of-Access Blueprint

  

  In Civil Rights Corps v. LaSalle, the Second Circuit recently held that the First Amendment dictates a presumptive right of access to sealed attorney grievance proceedings, providing a framework for challenging other administrative regimes that operate behind closed doors, says Jonathan Ginsberg at Carlton Fields.

• How 'Swap' Fight Underpins Prediction Market Enforcement

  

  As courts around the country grapple with whether, and under what circumstances, event contracts qualify as swaps, federal enforcement authority hangs in the balance, with implications for companies that need to manage compliance risks during this period of legal uncertainty, say attorneys at Debevoise.

• Fed. Circ. Dental IP Ruling Reinforces Prior Art Framework

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Dental Monitoring v. Align Technology reaffirms the necessity of substantive written description support for establishing an earlier effective prior art date under the America Invents Act, and aligns Patent Trial and Appeal Board practice with district court litigation, say attorneys at Morgan Lewis.

• Justices' Hikma Reasoning May Extend Well Beyond Pharma

  

  The active steps framework announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Hikma v. Amarin decision, finding that Amarin failed to plausibly allege inducement of infringement, has the potential to reshape how courts evaluate inducement claims across patent, copyright and other doctrines, say attorneys at BCLP.

• 10th Circ. Ruling Propels Emerging 'Occurrence' Consensus

  

  The Tenth Circuit recently revived the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' bid for insurance coverage in a sexual abuse case, continuing a trend as the second circuit court to find that, where ambiguous, the definition of "occurrence" must be interpreted in favor of coverage, say attorneys at Anderson Kill.

• The State Of Prediction Market Litigation After 9th Circ. Ruling

  

  The Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Kalshi v. Assad gives state regulators significant appellate backing to enforce state gaming laws over prediction markets, creating a direct split with the Third Circuit that will likely lead to Supreme Court review of the question, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.