Expert Analysis

• 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.

• Series

  After Chevron: FTC's 'Unfair Competition' Actions In Jeopardy

  

  While the U.S. Supreme Court's decision ending Chevron deference will have limited effect on the Federal Trade Commission's merger guidelines, administrative enforcement actions and commission decisions on appeal, it could restrict the agency's expansive take on its rulemaking authority and threaten the noncompete ban, say attorneys at Baker Botts.

• How To Clean Up Your Generative AI-Produced Legal Drafts

  

  As law firms increasingly rely on generative artificial intelligence tools to produce legal text, attorneys should be on guard for the overuse of cohesive devices in initial drafts, and consider a few editing pointers to clean up AI’s repetitive and choppy outputs, says Ivy Grey at WordRake.

• Calif. Ruling Heightens Medical Product Maker Liability

  

  The California Supreme Court's decision in Himes v. Somatics last month articulates a new causation standard for medical product manufacturer liability that may lead to stronger product disclosures nationwide and greater friction between manufacturers and physicians, say attorneys at Cooley.

• Series

  After Chevron: Opportunities For Change In FHFA Practices

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of the Chevron doctrine should lead to better cooperation between the Federal Housing Finance Agency and Congress, and may give the FHFA a chance to embrace transparency and innovation and promote sustainable housing practices, says Mehdi Sinaki at Michelman & Robinson.

• Constitutional Protections For Cannabis Companies Are Hazy

  

  Cannabis businesses are subject to federal enforcement and tax, but often without the benefit of constitutional protections — and the entanglement of state and federal law and conflicting judicial opinions are creating confusion in the space, says Amber Lengacher at Purple Circle.

• Supreme Court's ALJ Ruling Carries Implications Beyond SEC

  

  In its recent Jarkesy opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the types of cases that can be tried before the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's in-house administrative law judges, setting the stage for challenges to the constitutionality of ALJs across other agencies, say Robert Robertson and Kimberley Church at Dechert.

• Opinion

  A Tale Of 2 Trump Cases: The Rule Of Law Is A Live Issue

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision this week in Trump v. U.S., holding that former President Donald Trump has broad immunity from prosecution, undercuts the rule of law, while the former president’s New York hush money conviction vindicates it in eight key ways, says David Postel at Henein Hutchison.

• 2nd Circ. ERISA Ruling May Help Fight Unfair Arb. Clauses

  

  The Second Circuit recently held that a plaintiff seeking planwide relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act cannot be compelled to individual arbitration, a decision that opens the door to new applications of the effective vindication doctrine to defeat onerous and one-sided arbitration clauses, say Raphael Janove and Liana Vitale at Janove.

• Series

  After Chevron: Various Paths For Labor And Employment Law

  

  Labor and employment law leans heavily on federal agency guidance, so the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to toss out Chevron deference will ripple through this area, with future workplace policies possibly taking shape through strategic litigation, informal guidance, state-level regulation and more, says Alexander MacDonald at Littler.

• Series

  Boxing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Boxing has influenced my legal work by enabling me to confidently hone the skills I've learned from the sport, like the ability to remain calm under pressure, evaluate an opponent's weaknesses and recognize when to seize an important opportunity, says Kirsten Soto at Clyde & Co.

• Purdue Ch. 11 Ruling Reinforces Importance Of D&O Coverage

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, holding that a Chapter 11 reorganization cannot discharge claims against a nondebtor without affected claimants' consent, will open new litigation pathways surrounding corporate insolvency and increase the importance of robust directors and officers insurance, says Evan Bolla at Harris St. Laurent.

• Fed. Circ. Percipient Gov't Contract Ruling Is Groundbreaking

  

  The effects of the Federal Circuit's decision last month in Percipient.ai v. U.S. may be limited to commercial product and service suppliers, but it is significant for government procurement in opening the door to protests by suppliers who previously would have lacked standing and Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction, say attorneys at Haynes Boone.