Expert Analysis

• Why Justices Should Rule On FAA's Commerce Exception

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court should review the Ninth Circuit's Ortiz v. Randstad decision, to clarify whether involvement in interstate commerce exempts workers from the Federal Arbitration Act, a crucial question given employers' and employees' strong competing interests in arbitration and litigation, says Collin Williams at New Era.

• Series

  After Chevron: Rethinking Agency Deference In IP Cases

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent overturning of Chevron deference could make it simpler to challenge the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s proposed rule on terminal disclaimers and U.S. International Trade Commission interpretations, says William Milliken at Sterne Kessler.

• FLSA Conditional Certification Is Alive And Well In 4th Circ.

  

  A North Carolina federal court's recent decision in Johnson v. PHP emphasized continued preference by courts in the Fourth Circuit for a two-step conditional certification process for Fair Labor Standards Act collective actions, rejecting views from other circuits and affording plaintiffs a less burdensome path, say Joshua Adams and Damón Gray at Jackson Lewis.

• 7th Circ. Exclusion Ruling Will Narrow BIPA Coverage

  

  The Seventh Circuit's recent decision in Thermoflex Waukegan v. Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance, holding that the access or disclosure exclusion applies to insurance claims brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act, departs from the majority rule and opens the door to insurers more firmly denying coverage under general liability policies, say attorneys at Perkins Coie.

• Tricky Venue Issues Persist In Fortenberry Prosecution Redo

  

  Former Rep. Jeff Fortenberry was recently indicted for a second time after the Ninth Circuit tossed his previous conviction for improper venue, but the case, now pending in the District of Columbia, continues to illustrate the complexities of proper venue in "false statement scheme" prosecutions, says Kevin Coleman at Covington.

• Series

  Solving Puzzles Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Tackling daily puzzles — like Wordle, KenKen and Connections — has bolstered my intellectual property litigation practice by helping me to exercise different mental skills, acknowledge minor but important details, and build and reinforce good habits, says Roy Wepner at Kaplan Breyer.

• 1st Gender Care Ban Provides Context For High Court Case

  

  The history of Arkansas' ban on gender-affirming medical care — the first such legislation in the U.S. — provides important insight into the far-reaching ramifications that the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti next term will have on transgender healthcare, says Tyler Saenz at Baker Donelson.

• Series

  After Chevron: FCC And Industry Must Prepare For Change

  

  The Chevron doctrine was especially significant in the communications sector because of the indeterminacy of federal communications statutes, so the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of the doctrine could have big implications for those regulated by the Federal Communications Commission, bringing both opportunities and risks for companies, say Thomas Johnson and Michael Showalter at Wiley.

• Series

  After Chevron: Uniform Tax Law Interpretation Not Guaranteed

  

  The loss of Chevron deference will significantly alter the relationship between the IRS, courts and Congress when it comes to tax law, potentially precipitating more transparent rulemaking, but also provoking greater uncertainty due to variability in judicial interpretation, say Michelle Levin and Carneil Wilson at Dentons.

• Series

  After Chevron: Environmental Law May Face Hurdles

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling overturning Chevron deference could prove to be as influential as the original 1984 decision, with far-reaching implications for U.S. environmental laws, including rendering recently promulgated regulations more vulnerable to challenges, say attorneys at Morgan Lewis.

• 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.