Opinion

'Trump Too Small' Ruling Overlooks TM Registration Issues

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision last month in Vidal v. Elster, which concluded that “Trump Too Small” cannot be a registered trademark as it violates a federal prohibition, fails to consider modern-day, real-world implications for trademark owners who are denied access to federal registration, say Tiffany Gehrke and Alexa Spitz at Marshall Gerstein.

Colo. Ruling Adopts 'Actual Discharge' Test For The First Time

After a Colorado court’s recent decision in Potts v. Gaia Children, adopting for the first time a test for evaluating an actual discharge claim, employers must diligently document the circumstances surrounding termination of employment, and exercise particular caution when texting employees, says Michael Laszlo at Clark Hill.

Texas Ethics Opinion Flags Hazards Of Unauthorized Practice

The Texas Professional Ethics Committee's recently issued proposed opinion finding that in-house counsel providing legal services to the company's clients constitutes the unauthorized practice of law is a valuable clarification given that a UPL violation — a misdemeanor in most states — carries high stakes, say Hilary Gerzhoy and Julienne Pasichow at HWG.

Why High Court Social Media Ruling Will Be Hotly Debated

In deciding the NetChoice cases that challenged Florida and Texas content moderation laws, what the U.S. Supreme Court justices said about social media platforms — and the First Amendment — will have implications and raise questions for nearly all online operators, say Jacob Canter and Joanna Rosen Forster at Crowell & Moring.

Series

After Chevron: Good News For Gov't Contractors In Litigation

The net result of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision overturning Chevron deference is that individuals, contractors and companies bringing procurement-related cases against the government will have new pathways toward success, say Joseph Berger and Andrés Vera at Thompson Hine.

Series

After Chevron: Scale Tips Favor Away From HHS Agencies

The loss of Chevron deference may indirectly aid parties in challenging the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' interpretations of regulations and could immediately influence several pending cases challenging HHS on technical questions and agency authority, say attorneys at Ropes & Gray.

Series

After Chevron: FDA Overreach May Find Itself In Crosshairs

The U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of the Chevron doctrine is likely to unleash an array of challenges against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, focusing on areas of potential overreach such as the FDA's authority under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, say attorneys at Debevoise.

2 Options For Sackler Family After High Court Purdue Ruling

After the U.S. Supreme Court recently blocked Purdue Pharma's plan to shield the family that owns the company from bankruptcy lawsuits, the Sacklers face the choice to either continue litigation, or return to the bargaining table for a settlement that doesn't eliminate creditor claims, says Gregory Germain at Syracuse University.

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.