Expert Analysis

• Reading Between The Lines Of Justices' Moore Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent Moore v. U.S. decision, that the Internal Revenue Code Section 965 did not violate the 16th Amendment, was narrowly tailored to minimally disrupt existing tax regimes, but the justices' various opinions leave the door open to future tax challenges and provide clues for what the battles may look like, say Caroline Ngo and Le Chen at McDermott.

• Series

  After Chevron: A Sea Change For Maritime Sector

  

  The shipping industry has often looked to the courts for key agency decisions affecting maritime interests, but after the U.S. Supreme Court's Loper Bright ruling, stakeholders may revisit important industry questions and coordinate to bring appropriate challenges and shape rulemaking, say attorneys at Holland & Knight.

• Opinion

  Post-Chevron, Good Riddance To The Sentencing Guidelines

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of the Chevron doctrine may signal the end of the U.S. sentencing guidelines, which is good news given that they have accomplished the opposite of Congress’ original intent to bring certainty, proportionality and uniformity to sentencing, say attorneys Mark Allenbaugh, Doug Passon and Alan Ellis.

• Series

  After Chevron: Impact On CFPB May Be Limited

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo is likely to have a limited impact on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's regulatory activities, and for those who value due process, consistency and predictability in consumer financial services regulation, this may be a good thing, says John Coleman at Orrick.

• A Midyear Forecast: Tailwinds Expected For Atty Hourly Rates

  

  Hourly rates for partners, associates and support staff continued to rise in the first half of this year, and this growth shows no signs of slowing for the rest of 2024 and into next year, driven in part by the return of mergers and acquisitions and the widespread adoption of artificial intelligence, says Chuck Chandler at Valeo Partners.

• Series

  After Chevron: 7 FERC Takeaways From Loper Bright

  

  Following the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of the Chevron doctrine, it's likely that the majority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's orders will not be affected, but the commission has nonetheless lost an important fallback argument and will have to approach rulemaking more cautiously, says Norman Bay at Willkie Farr.

• Series

  After Chevron: USDA Rules May Be Up In The Air

  

  The Supreme Court's end of Chevron deference may cause more lawsuits against U.S. Department of Agriculture regulations, like the one redefining "unfair trade practices" under the Packers and Stockyards Act, or a new policy classifying salmonella as an adulterant in certain poultry products, says Bob Hibbert at Wiley.

• 7th Circ Joins Trend Of No CGL Coverage For Structural Flaws

  

  The Seventh Circuit, which recently held potential structural instability did not count as property damage under a construction company's commercial general liability policy, joins a growing consensus that faulty work does not implicate coverage without tangible and present damage to the project, say Sarah Abrams at Baleen Specialty, and Elan Kandel and James Talbert at Bailey Cavalieri.

• Series

  In The CFPB Playbook: Making Good On Bold Promises

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding structure in the second quarter cleared the way for the bureau to resume a number of high-priority initiatives, and it appears poised to charge ahead in working toward its aggressive preelection agenda, say Andrew Arculin and Paula Vigo Marqués at Blank Rome.

• Series

  After Chevron: Creating New Hurdles For ESG Rulemaking

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision, limiting court deference to agencies' statutory interpretations, could have significant impacts on the future of ESG regulation, creating new hurdles for agency rulemaking around these emerging issues, and calling into question current administrative actions, says Leah Malone at Simpson Thacher.

• Accidental Death Ruling Shows ERISA Review Standard's Pull

  

  The Eleventh Circuit’s recent accidental death insurance ruling in Goldfarb v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance illustrates how an arbitrary and capricious standard of review in Employee Retirement Income Security Act denial-of-benefits cases creates a steep uphill battle for benefit claimants, says Mark DeBofsky at DeBofsky Law.

• Critical Questions Remain After High Court's Abortion Rulings

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in two major abortion-related cases this term largely preserve the status quo for now, but leave federal preemption, the Comstock Act and in vitro fertilization in limbo, say attorneys at Jenner & Block.

• California Adds A Novel Twist To State Suits Against Big Oil

  

  California’s suit against Exxon Mobil Corp., one of several state suits that seek to hold oil and gas companies accountable for climate-related harms, is unique both in the magnitude of the alleged claims and its use of a consumer protection statute to seek disgorgement of industry profits, says Julia Stein at UCLA School of Law.

• Opinion

  States Should Loosen Law Firm Ownership Restrictions

  

  Despite growing buzz, normalized nonlawyer ownership of law firms is a distant prospect, so the legal community should focus first on liberalizing state restrictions on attorney and firm purchases of practices, which would bolster succession planning and improve access to justice, says Michael Di Gennaro at The Law Practice Exchange.

• 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.