Expert Analysis

• 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 Regulations In The 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.

• 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.