Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  Justices' Malicious-Prosecution Ruling Shows Rare Restraint

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chiaverini v. City of Napoleon, Ohio, declining to limit malicious-prosecution suits, is a model of judicial modesty and incrementalism, in sharp contrast to the court’s dramatic swings on other rights, says Steven Schwinn at the University of Illinois Chicago Law School.

• Opinion

  Trump Immunity Ruling Upends Our Constitutional Scheme

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s Trump v. U.S. decision elevates the president to imperial status and paves the way for nearly absolute presidential immunity from potential criminal prosecutions — with no constitutional textual support, says Paul Berman at the George Washington University Law School.

• High Court Paves Middle Ground For Proceedings Obstruction

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Fischer sensibly leaves the door open for prosecutors to make more nuanced assessments as to whether defendants' actions directly or tangentially impair the availability or integrity of anything used in an official proceeding, without criminalizing acts such as peaceful demonstrations, say attorneys at Perry Law.

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

• Series

  After Chevron: No Deference, No Difference For SEC Or CFTC

  

  The Chevron doctrine did not fundamentally alter the interplay between the courts and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the development of the securities and commodities laws — and its demise will not do so either, says Dan Berkovitz at Millennium Management.

• Opinion

  Industry Self-Regulation Will Shine Post-Chevron

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's Loper decision will shape the contours of industry self-regulation in the years to come, providing opportunities for this often-misunderstood practice, says Eric Reicin at BBB National Programs.

• Justices' Bribery Ruling: A Corrupt Act Isn't Necessarily Illegal

  

  In its Snyder v. U.S. decision last week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a bribery law does not criminalize gratuities, continuing a trend of narrowing federal anti-corruption laws and scrutinizing public corruption prosecutions that go beyond obvious quid pro quo schemes, say Carrie Cohen and Christine Wong at MoFo.

• 3 Ways Agencies Will Keep Making Law After Chevron

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court clearly thinks it has done something big in overturning the Chevron precedent that had given deference to agencies' statutory interpretations, but regulated parties have to consider how agencies retain significant power to shape the law and its meaning, say attorneys at K&L Gates.

• Roundup

  After Chevron

  

  Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference standard in June, this Expert Analysis series has featured attorneys discussing the potential impact across 36 different rulemaking and litigation areas.

• Key Takeaways From High Court's Substitute Expert Decision

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Smith v. Arizona decision, holding that the confrontation clause generally bars prosecutors’ use of a substitute expert witness at trial, will have the most impact in narcotics and violent crime cases, but creative defense lawyers may find it useful in white collar cases, too, say Joshua Naftalis and Melissa Kelley at Pallas Partners.

• Opinion

  Atty Well-Being Efforts Ignore Root Causes Of The Problem

  

  The legal industry is engaged in a critical conversation about lawyers' mental health, but current attorney well-being programs primarily focus on helping lawyers cope with the stress of excessive workloads, instead of examining whether this work culture is even fundamentally compatible with lawyer well-being, says Jonathan Baum at Avenir Guild.

• Proposed Customer ID Rule Could Cost Investment Advisers

  

  A rule recently proposed by FinCEN and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to make financial advisers collect more customer information parallels an anti-money laundering and counterterrorism rule proposed this spring, but firms may face new compliance costs when implementing these screening programs, say attorneys at Lowenstein Sandler.