Expert Analysis

• The Political Branches Can't Redefine The Citizenship Clause

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s Wong Kim Ark opinion and subsequent decisions, and the 14th Amendment’s legislative history, establish that the citizenship clause precludes the political branches from narrowing the definition of citizen based on how a parent’s U.S. presence is categorized, says federal public defender Geremy Kamens.

• Questions Remain After Justices' Narrow E-Rate FCA Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wisconsin Bell, holding that requests for reimbursement from the Federal Communications Commission's E-Rate program are subject to False Claims Act liability, resolves one important question but leaves several others open, says Jason Neal at HWG.

• Bill Would Bring Welcome Clarity To Del. Corporate Law

  

  A recently proposed bill in Delaware that would provide greater predictability for areas including director independence and controlling stockholders reflects prudential adjustments consistent with the state's long history of refining and modernizing its corporate law, say attorneys at Simpson Thacher.

• Opinion

  At 100, Federal Arbitration Act Is Used To Thwart Justice

  

  The centennial of the Federal Arbitration Act, a law intended to streamline dispute resolution in commercial agreements, is an opportunity to reflect on its transformation from a tool of fairness into a corporate shield that impedes the right to a fair trial, says Lori Andrus at the American Association for Justice.

• Opinion

  Attorneys Must Act Now To Protect Judicial Independence

  

  Given the Trump administration's recent moves threatening the independence of the judiciary, including efforts to impeach judges who ruled against executive actions, lawyers must protect the rule of law and resist attempts to dilute the judicial branch’s authority, says attorney Bhavleen Sabharwal.

• Colo. Anti-SLAPP Cases Highlight Dismiss Standard Disparity

  

  A pair of recent decisions from the Colorado Court of Appeals highlights two disparate standards for courts evaluating anti-SLAPP motions: one that requires a court to accept the plaintiff's evidence as true and another that allows the court to assess its merits, says Jacob Hollars at Spencer Fane.

• Short-Term Predictions For The CFPB's Fate Under Trump

  

  Though the Trump administration is unlikely to succeed in abolishing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, new leadership will likely moderate enforcement, possibly prompting state attorneys general to step up supervision, say attorneys at Husch Blackwell.

• Ga. Tort Reform Bill May Help Dampen 'Nuclear' Verdicts

  

  Many aspects of the tort reform bill just passed by the Georgia Legislature — including prohibitions on suggesting damage amounts to juries, and limits to recovering phantom damages — face opposition from the plaintiffs bar, but are a key first step toward addressing excessive damage awards in the state, say attorneys at Alston & Bird.

• Rethinking 'No Comment' For Clients Facing Public Crises

  

  “No comment” is no longer a cost-free or even a viable public communications strategy for companies in crisis, and counsel must tailor their guidance based on a variety of competing factors to help clients emerge successfully, says Robert Bowers at Moore & Van Allen.

• Reading The Tea Leaves On Mexico, Canada And China Tariffs

  

  It's still unclear whether the delay in the imposition of U.S. tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports will result in negotiated resolutions or a full-on trade war, but the outcome may hinge on continuing negotiations and the Trump administration's possible plans for tariff revenues, say attorneys at Eversheds Sutherland.

• DOJ Memos Likely To Increase Mandatory Minimum Charges

  

  In line with previous administrations’ pingpong approach to sentencing policy, new U.S. Department of Justice leadership recently rescinded Biden-era memos on charging decisions, cabining prosecutorial discretion and likely leading to more mandatory minimum sentences, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• A Closer Look At FDX's New Role As Banking Standard-Setter

  

  Should the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau let ​​​​​​​stand the decision empowering Financial Data Exchange as an industry standard-setter, it will be a significant step toward broader financial data-sharing, but its success will depend on industry adoption, regulatory oversight and consumer confidence, say attorneys at Clark Hill.

• Opinion

  High Court Must Acknowledge US History Of Anti-Trans Laws

  

  Despite Justice Amy Coney Barrett's claim to the contrary during oral arguments in U.S. v. Skrmetti, U.S. governments at every level have systematically discriminated against transgender people, and the U.S. Supreme Court must consider this historical context in upcoming cases about transgender issues, says Paisley Currah at the City University of New York.

• What To Expect In Crypto Banking After SEC Nixed Guidance

  

  With the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission recently rescinding its controversial cryptocurrency accounting guidance, the industry's focus will turn to the potentially significant hurdle to crypto banking posed by the federal banking regulators, say attorneys at Duane Morris.

• Antitrust In Retail: Rude Awakening For FTC In Tempur Sealy

  

  A Texas federal court's recent denial of a Federal Trade Commision order to stop a giant mattress merger because of lack of evidence on market segments shows that such definitions are only a viable path for regulating vertical mergers if antitrust agencies provide adequate documentation, says David Kully at Holland & Knight.