Expert Analysis

• High Court's Abortion Pill Ruling Shuts Out Future Challenges

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine maintains the status quo for mifepristone access and rejects the plaintiffs' standing theories so thoroughly that future challenges from states or other plaintiffs are unlikely to be viable, say Jaime Santos and Annaka Nava at Goodwin.

• Insurers Have A Ch. 11 Voice Following High Court Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum — which reaffirmed a broad definition of "party in interest" — will give insurers, particularly in mass tort Chapter 11 bankruptcies, more opportunity to protect their interests and identify problems with reorganization plans, says George Singer at Holland & Hart.

• Justices' Bump Stock Ruling Skirted Deference, Lenity Issues

  

  Despite presenting a seemingly classic case on agency deference, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last week in Garland v. Cargill did not mention the Chevron doctrine, and the opinion also overlooked whether agency interpretations of federal gun laws should ever receive deference given that they carry criminal penalties, say Tess Saperstein and John Elwood at Arnold & Porter.

• Emerging Trends In ESG-Focused Securities Litigation

  

  Based on a combination of shareholder pressure, increasing regulatory scrutiny and proposed rulemaking, there has been a proliferation of litigation over public company disclosures and actions regarding environmental, social, and governance factors — and the overall volume of such class actions will likely increase in the coming years, say attorneys at Mintz.

• Firms Must Rethink How They Train New Lawyers In AI Age

  

  As law firms begin to use generative artificial intelligence to complete lower-level legal tasks, they’ll need to consider new ways to train summer associates and early-career attorneys, keeping in mind the five stages of skill acquisition, says Liisa Thomas at Sheppard Mullin.

• High Court's BofA Ruling Leaves State Preemption Questions

  

  A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Cantero v. Bank of America sheds light on whether certain state banking regulations apply to federally chartered banks, but a circuit split could still force the Supreme Court to take a more direct position, says Brett Garver at Moritt Hock.

• Next Steps After 5th Circ. Nixes Private Fund Adviser Rules

  

  The Fifth Circuit's recent toss of key U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rules regarding private fund advisers represents a setback for the regulator, but open questions, including the possibility of an SEC petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, mean it's still too early to consider the matter closed, say attorneys at Debevoise.

• Foreign Discovery Insights 2 Years After ZF Automotive

  

  Although an Arizona federal court decision last month demonstrates that Section 1782 discovery may still be available to foreign arbitral parties, the scope of such discovery has narrowed greatly since the U.S. Supreme Court's 2022 decision in ZF Automotive, and there are a few potential trends for practitioners to follow, say attorneys at Venable.

• Think Like A Lawyer: Always Be Closing

  

  When a lawyer presents their case with the right propulsive structure throughout trial, there is little need for further argument after the close of evidence — and in fact, rehashing it all may test jurors’ patience — so attorneys should consider other strategies for closing arguments, says Luke Andrews at Poole Huffman.

• Deciphering SEC Disgorgement 4 Years After Liu

  

  Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Liu v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to preserve SEC disgorgement with limits, courts have continued to rule largely in the agency’s favor, but a recent circuit split over the National Defense Authorization Act's import may create hurdles for the SEC, say attorneys at Ropes & Gray.

• Where Anti-Discrimination Law Stands 4 Years After Bostock

  

  On the fourth anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Bostock ruling, Evan Parness and Abby Rickeman at Covington take stock of how the decision, which held that Title VII protects employees from discrimination because of their sexual orientation and gender identity, has affected anti-discrimination law at the state and federal levels.

• 8th Circ. Insurance Ruling Spotlights Related-Claims Defenses

  

  The Eighth Circuit’s recent Dexon v. Travelers ruling — that the insurer must provide a defense despite the policy’s related-acts provision — provides guidance for how policyholders can overcome related-acts defenses, say Geoffrey Fehling and Jae Lynn Huckaba at Hunton.

• Series

  Playing Chess Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  There are many ways that chess skills translate directly into lawyer skills, but for me, the bigger career lessons go beyond the direct parallels — playing chess has shown me the value of seeing gradual improvement in and focusing deep concentration on a nonwork endeavor, says attorney Steven Fink.

• 9th Circ. Clarifies ERISA Preemption For Healthcare Industry

  

  The Ninth Circuit's recent ruling in Bristol SL Holdings v. Cigna notably clarifies the broad scope of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's preemption of certain state law causes of action, standing to benefit payors and health plan administrators, say attorneys at Troutman Pepper.

• Patent Lessons From 7 Federal Circuit Reversals In May

  

  A look at recent cases where the Federal Circuit reversed or vacated decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or a federal district court provide guidance on how to succeed on appeal by clarifying the obviousness analysis of design patents, the finality of a judgment, and more, say Denise De Mory and Li Guo at Bunsow De Mory.