Expert Analysis

• High Court's Recess Talks Ruling Raises Practical Challenges

  

  While the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Villarreal v. Texas decision, permitting some limits on attorney-client discussions during overnight midtestimony recesses, resolves certain ambiguities, it also implicitly exposes the structural impracticalities of attempting to police narrower consultation limits, says Ryan Magee at McCarter & English.

• Takeaways From Calif. High Court's Public Records Decision

  

  The California Supreme Court’s recent City of Gilroy v. Superior Court decision — clarifying the relief available under, and the duties imposed by, the California Public Records Act — expands the strategic significance of CPRA actions and demands greater foresight in public records practice, say attorneys at Hanson Bridgett.

• Opinion

  Fed. Circ. Must Bury Design Patent Doctrinal Zombies

  

  After recently finding noninfringement in Range of Motion Products v. Armaid, the Federal Circuit must rehear the case to confront two troublesome doctrines of design patent law claim construction — feature filtration and claim verbalization — that have lingered for decades and intensified in recent years, say attorneys at McAndrews Held.

• Lessons From Justices' Split On Major Questions Doctrine

  

  The justices' varied opinions in Learning Resources v. Trump, which held the International Emergency Economy Powers Act did not confer the power to impose tariffs, offer a meaningful window into the U.S. Supreme Court's perspective on the major questions doctrine that will likely shape lower courts' approach to executive action challenges, say attorneys at Venable.

• How The New Tariff Landscape May Unfold

  

  To replace tariffs formerly imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the administration will rely on a patchwork of statutes, potentially leading to procedural challenges and a complex tariff landscape with varying levels, durations and applicability, says Joseph Grossman-Trawick at King & Spalding.

• 4th Circ. Navy Federal Decision Illustrates Nuances Of Rule 23

  

  The Fourth Circuit's recent decision in Oliver v. Navy Federal Credit Union helpfully clarified how class action defendants can use Rule 23(c)(1)(A) to eliminate exposure early, along with the limitations of such an approach, say attorneys at Duane Morris.

• How DOJ Is Rethinking Corporate Crime Prosecution Tactics

  

  Recent statements from the Justice Department seem to indicate an incremental shift away from relying on collective employee knowledge when prosecuting corporate crime, and from exploring the bounds of case law that has not been a model of clarity, say attorneys at Covington.

• 2nd Circ. Kazakh Ruling Clarifies RICO Rule, FSIA Exception

  

  The Second Circuit's recent Yerkyn v. Yakovlevich ruling, dismissing a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim, demonstrates that RICO's domestic injury requirement is a merits question, and reaffirms the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act's commercial activity exception, says Brant Kuehn at Greenspoon Marder.

• 9th Circ. Ruling Evinces Tightening Of Nonmedical Hardship

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling in Vilchis-Gomez v. Bondi illustrates how a series of immigration decisions are transforming the extreme hardship defense to removal into a de facto medical necessity requirement, but practitioners can push back by continuing to assert long-standing precedents and building comprehensive records, says Abdoul Konare at Konare Law.

• Sentencing Amendments Could Spell Paradigm Shift

  

  Three of the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s recently proposed guideline amendments would have an immediate and dramatic impact on economic offenders, resulting in significantly fewer defendants receiving sentences of imprisonment and meaningfully addressing congressional directives, say Mark Allenbaugh at SentencingStats.com and Doug Passon at Doug Passon Law.

• Del. Justices' Upholding Of SB 21 Gives Cos. Needed Clarity

  

  The Delaware Supreme Court's recent unanimous decision in Rutledge v. Clearway Energy — upholding 2025 corporate law amendments enacted through S.B. 21, which clarified safe harbor protections and key terms — may help stem the DExit movement, whose proponents have claimed unpredictability in Delaware courts, say attorneys at Nelson Mullins.

• Calif. Case Could Lead To A Redefined Pollution Exclusion

  

  In recently agreeing to hear Montrose Chemical v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court will decide whether a court should consider extrinsic evidence offered by a party to prove its interpretation of the insurance policy language, opening the door to a different definition of "sudden" in insurance policies' pollution exclusions, say attorneys at Pillsbury.

• Series

  Volunteering With Scouts Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Serving as an assistant scoutmaster for my son’s troop reaffirmed several skills and principles crucial to lawyering — from the importance of disconnecting to the value of morality, says Michael Warren at McManis Faulkner.

• Recent Rulings Show DEI Isn't On Courts' Chopping Block

  

  Contrary to recent narratives that workplace diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are on the verge of legal collapse, courts are applying familiar guardrails for litigating DEI-adjacent cases — requiring the right plaintiff, the right challenge and the right proof — rather than rewriting the rules on DEI, say attorneys at Krevolin Horst.

• Series

  Law School's Missed Lessons: In Court, It's About Storytelling

  

  Law school provides doctrine, cases and hypotheticals, but when lawyers step into the courtroom, they must learn the importance of clarity, credibility, memorability and preparation — in other words, how to tell simple, effective stories, say Nicholas Steverson and Danielle Trujillo at Wheeler Trigg, and Lisa DeCaro at Courtroom Performance.