Opinion

Md., Colo. Climate Rulings Point To Need For Federal Solution

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review the Colorado Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in Boulder County v. Suncor U.S. Inc., which green-lit a state-level climate lawsuit, a recent conflicting ruling from the Maryland Supreme Court underscores why a uniform federal answer on climate litigation is needed now, says Phil Goldberg at Shook Hardy.

High Court's FCC Ruling Adds To Comms Industry Paradox

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, finding that the FCC's informal forfeiture process survives Seventh Amendment scrutiny, opens some doors for regulated entities, but the practical effect may be surprisingly constrained, says Jonathan Marashlian at The CommLaw Group.

Series

Founding An Autism Academy Made Me A Better Lawyer

Starting a nonprofit autism school with no building, no funding model and no guarantee that families would trust us taught me the importance of mission, patience and purpose — lessons that sharpened my practice and showed how meaningful work outside the office can make lawyers better, says Phillip Russell at Ogletree Deakins.

Why Private Sector Should Watch Gov't DEI Firing Class Bid

Former federal employees' class certification attempt in Fell v. Trump is worth following, as their challenge of the Office of Personnel Management's elimination of DEI positions raises questions about commonality in employee classes and protections for nonminority advocacy that reach beyond the public sector, says Shaun Southworth at Southworth PC.

When Do Murals Qualify For IP Protection?

Artist Robert Wyland recently sued FIFA for painting over his 1999 "Ocean Life" mural to make room for a World Cup promotion in Dallas, spotlighting questions over the extent to which copyright law and the Visual Artists Rights Act protect different types of art, say attorneys at Armstrong Teasdale.

How Justices' Habeas Ruling Limits Compassionate Release

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent holding in Fernandez v. U.S. that a federal prisoner who challenges their conviction's validity must do so through habeas, not compassionate release, considerably narrows the universe of arguments that can support a sentence reduction, says attorney Elizabeth Franklin-Best.

The Banking Issue Hiding In Justices' Freight Broker Ruling

While the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent liability preemption ruling in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport was front-page news for the transportation industry, the banking industry seems to have missed that the decision exposes freight broker lenders to credit, documentation and litigation issues, say attorneys at Barack Ferrazzano.

Insurance Ruling Extends NY Bad Faith To 3rd-Party Coverage

In Renergy v. Mt. Hawley Insurance, a New York federal court recently granted a policyholder leave to amend its complaint to clarify a bad faith claims handling cause of action, confirming, after nearly 20 years, that bad faith damages are available in the third-party liability context, say attorneys at Barnes & Thornburg.

Opinion

Rule Of Law Requires Gov't Engagement With Bar, Not Retreat

A federal agency's absence from national and local bar conferences, most recently illustrated by the U.S. Department of Justice's withdrawal from a New York City Bar Association white collar conference, disserves the bar, the government lawyers themselves and, ultimately, the administration of justice, says Muhammad Faridi at Linklaters.

Fed. Circ. Clarifies Standard For Contesting CICA Overrides

The Federal Circuit's recent holding in Life Science Logistics strengthens the hand of protesters facing an override of the Competition in Contracting Act stay, and a Court of Federal Claims decision the same day demonstrates that how a protester frames its requested relief remains critically important, says Richard Arnholt at Bass Berry.

The Paradoxical Duty To Adopt AI When You Can't Bill For It

Both billing for hours saved using artificial intelligence and preserving billable time by not adopting AI may violate rules of professional conduct, but until bar associations' ethics rules catch up to this emerging economic dilemma, firms must decide how to adjust fee structures themselves, says Ines Lassalle at Peyrot & Associates.

4 Emerging Limits Of Employer Mental Health Notice Defense

A California appeals court's recent decision in Husband v. Target, addressing when an employer knows about an employee's undisclosed disability, leaves open questions about how changes in mental health awareness and workforce monitoring tools may raise the bar for what employers can claim not to know, says Benjamin Heller at RFZ Law.

Raptors Ruling Shows Risks Of Calif. Enviro Suit Intervention

Intervention in California environmental litigation can allow businesses to help defend agency approvals, but after a state appeals court's recent ruling in Raptors Are the Solution v. CropLife America, it is clear that intervention also carries a price — and that courts will hold parties accountable for the full arc of their litigation conduct, says Thierry Montoya at FBT Gibbons.

A Decade Later, Escobar Is Still Shaping FCA Cases

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision 10 years ago in Universal Health Services v. U.S. ex rel. Escobar changed the way in which lower courts evaluate False Claims Act cases — and the ruling remains vital in nearly every FCA case filed today, say attorneys at Bradley Arant.

Sripetch May Prove To Be An Empty Victory For The SEC

The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Sripetch v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission held that the SEC need not prove pecuniary harm for disgorgement, but if the commission must still identify victims and distribute funds in a compensatory way, it faces the same economic problem as before the ruling, says Erin Smith at Compass Lexecon.