In Memoriam: The Modern Administrative State

On June 28, the modern administrative state, where courts deferred to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, died when the U.S. Supreme Court overruled its previous decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council — but it is survived by many cases decided under the Chevron framework, say Joseph Schaeffer and Jessica Deyoe at Babst Calland.

Series

After Chevron: Expect Limited Changes In USPTO Rulemaking

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling overturning Chevron deference will have limited consequences for the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office given the USPTO's unique statutory features, but it is still an important decision for matters of statutory interpretation, especially those involving provisions of the America Invents Act, say Andrei Iancu and Cooper Godfrey at Sullivan & Cromwell.

Opinion

It's Time For Nationwide Race-Based Hair Protections

While 24 states have passed laws that prohibit race-based hair discrimination, this type of bias persists in workplaces and schools, so a robust federal law is necessary to ensure widespread protection, says Samone Ijoma and Erica Roberts at Sanford Heisler.

Opinion

Justices' Malicious-Prosecution Ruling Shows Rare Restraint

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio, declining to limit malicious-prosecution suits, is a model of judicial modesty and incrementalism, in sharp contrast to the court’s dramatic swings on other rights, says Steven Schwinn at the University of Illinois Chicago Law School.

Series

After Chevron: EEOC Status Quo Will Likely Continue

As the legal landscape adjusts to the end of Chevron deference, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s rulemaking authority isn’t likely to shift as much as some other employment-related agencies, says Paige Lyle at FordHarrison.

Series

After Chevron: Impact On Indian Law May Be Muted

Agency interpretations of Indian law statutes that previously stood the test of judicial review ​are likely to withstand new challenges even after the end of Chevron deference, but litigation in the area is all but certain, say attorneys at Jenner & Block.

Opinion

Trump Immunity Ruling Upends Our Constitutional Scheme

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Trump v. U.S. decision elevates the president to imperial status and paves the way for nearly absolute presidential immunity from potential criminal prosecutions — with no constitutional textual support, says Paul Berman at the George Washington University Law School.

High Court Paves Middle Ground For Proceedings Obstruction

The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Fischer sensibly leaves the door open for prosecutors to make more nuanced assessments as to whether defendants' actions directly or tangentially impair the availability or integrity of anything used in an official proceeding, without criminalizing acts such as peaceful demonstrations, say attorneys at Perry Law.

How High Court Approached Time Limit On Reg Challenges

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Corner Post v. Federal Reserve Board effectively gives new entities their own personal statute of limitations to challenge rules and regulations, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence may portend the court's view that those entities do not need to be directly regulated, say attorneys at Snell & Wilmer.

Fed. Circ. Skinny Label Ruling Guides On Infringement Claims

The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Amarin v. Hikma shows generic drug manufacturers must pay close attention to the statements in their abbreviated new drug application labels to put themselves in the best position in defending against an induced infringement claim, say Luke Shannon and Roshan Shrestha at Taft Stettinius.

Revisiting Scalia's 'What's It To You?' After Kaiser Ruling

While the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser allows insurers to be considered "parties in interest" in Chapter 11 cases, they still need to show they would face an injury in fact, answering the late Justice Antonin Scalia's "what's it to you?" question, say Brent Weisenberg and Jeff Prol at Lowenstein Sandler.

Series

After Chevron: FTC's 'Unfair Competition' Actions In Jeopardy

While the U.S. Supreme Court's decision ending Chevron deference will have limited effect on the Federal Trade Commission's merger guidelines, administrative enforcement actions and commission decisions on appeal, it could restrict the agency's expansive take on its rulemaking authority and threaten the noncompete ban, say attorneys at Baker Botts.

How To Clean Up Your Generative AI-Produced Legal Drafts

As law firms increasingly rely on generative artificial intelligence tools to produce legal text, attorneys should be on guard for the overuse of cohesive devices in initial drafts, and consider a few editing pointers to clean up AI’s repetitive and choppy outputs, says Ivy Grey at WordRake.

Calif. Ruling Heightens Medical Product Maker Liability

The California Supreme Court's decision in Himes v. Somatics last month articulates a new causation standard for medical product manufacturer liability that may lead to stronger product disclosures nationwide and greater friction between manufacturers and physicians, say attorneys at Cooley.

Series

After Chevron: Opportunities For Change In FHFA Practices

The U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of the Chevron doctrine should lead to better cooperation between the Federal Housing Finance Agency and Congress, and may give the FHFA a chance to embrace transparency and innovation and promote sustainable housing practices, says Mehdi Sinaki at Michelman & Robinson.