Expert Analysis

• Justices' Bribery Ruling: A Corrupt Act Isn't Necessarily Illegal

  

  In its Snyder v. U.S. decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a bribery law does not criminalize gratuities, continuing a trend of narrowing federal anti-corruption laws and scrutinizing public corruption prosecutions that go beyond obvious quid pro quo schemes, say Carrie Cohen and Christine Wong at MoFo.

• 3 Ways Agencies Will Keep Making Law After Chevron

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court clearly thinks it has done something big in overturning the Chevron precedent that had given deference to agencies' statutory interpretations, but regulated parties have to consider how agencies retain significant power to shape the law and its meaning, say attorneys at K&L Gates.

• Roundup

  After Chevron

  

  Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference standard in June, this Expert Analysis series has featured attorneys discussing the potential impact across 36 different rulemaking and litigation areas.

• Navigating Scrutiny Of Friendly Professional Corps. In Calif.

  

  In light of ongoing scrutiny and challenges to private equity participation in the California healthcare marketplace, particularly surrounding the use of the friendly professional corporation model, management services organizations should consider implementing four best practices, say attorneys at Holland & Knight.

• Series

  After Chevron: Expect Few Changes In ITC Rulemaking

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion overruling the Chevron doctrine will have less impact on the U.S. International Trade Commission than other agencies administering trade statutes, given that the commission exercises its congressionally granted authority in a manner that allows for consistent decision making at both agency and judicial levels, say attorneys at Polsinelli.

• 6 PTAB Events To Know From The Last 6 Months

  

  The first half of 2024 brought a flurry of Patent Trial and Appeal Board developments that should be considered in post-grant strategies, including proposed rules on discretionary denial and director review, and the first decisions of the Delegated Rehearing Panel, say attorneys at Fish & Richardson.

• Key Takeaways From High Court's Substitute Expert Decision

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Smith v. Arizona decision, holding that the confrontation clause generally bars prosecutors’ use of a substitute expert witness at trial, will have the most impact in narcotics and violent crime cases, but creative defense lawyers may find it useful in white collar cases, too, say Joshua Naftalis and Melissa Kelley at Pallas Partners.

• Opinion

  Atty Well-Being Efforts Ignore Root Causes Of The Problem

  

  The legal industry is engaged in a critical conversation about lawyers' mental health, but current attorney well-being programs primarily focus on helping lawyers cope with the stress of excessive workloads, instead of examining whether this work culture is even fundamentally compatible with lawyer well-being, says Jonathan Baum at Avenir Guild.

• Parsing Justices' Toss Of Purdue's Controversial Ch. 11 Plan

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent nixing of OxyContin manufacturer Purdue Pharma's Chapter 11 proposal prevents the Sackler family from settling thousands of civil opioid lawsuits without the consent of all of the plaintiffs, and holds profound implications for bankruptcy cases, say attorneys at MoloLamken.

• Calif. Long-Tail Ruling Continues Policyholder-Friendly Trend

  

  The California Supreme Court's recent ruling in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Cement & Gypsum, rejecting horizontal policy exhaustion, was the latest in a string of its decisions involving insurance coverage for continuous or progressive injury claims that favor policyholders, say Billie Mandelbaum and David Goodwin at Covington.

• What 2 Rulings On Standing Mean For DEI Litigation

  

  Recent federal court decisions in the Fearless Fund and Hello Alice cases shed new light on the ongoing wave of challenges to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, with opposite conclusions on whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue, say attorneys at Moore & Van Allen.

• Perspectives

  High Court Ruling Leaves Chance For Civil Forfeiture Reform

  

  Though advocates for civil forfeiture reform did not prevail in Culley v. Marshall last month, concerns voiced by a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices potentially leave the door open to consider stricter limits in future cases, say attorneys at Dykema.

• 4 Important Events In Bank Regulation: A Midyear Review

  

  The first six months of 2024 have been fairly stable for the banking industry, though U.S. Supreme Court decisions and proposals from regulators have significantly affected the regulatory standards applicable to insured depository institutions, says Christina Grigorian at Katten.

• Perspectives

  NY Chief Judge Spotlights Need To Strengthen Public Defense

  

  In a recent concurrence in People v. Watkins, New York Chief Judge Rowan Wilson called attention to the necessity for greater investment in public defense services, highlighting not only the urgency of current crises, but the need to embrace a more ambitious vision of equal right to counsel, says Corey Stoughton at Selendy Gay.

• The Fed. Circ. In May: A Major Shift In Design Patent Law

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent en banc decision in LKQ v. GM overruled three decades of precedent and adopted a new standard for assessing the obviousness of design patents, leaving many questions unanswered, say Sean Murray and Jeremiah Helm at Knobbe Martens.