Expert Analysis

• Reflections From High Court Oral Args Over Fed Gov. Removal

  

  In the oral arguments last month for Trump v. Cook, which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to clarify the circumstances under which the president can remove a Federal Reserve Board governor, the justices appeared skeptical about ruling on the substantive issues in view of the limited record and analysis, say attorneys at Ballard Spahr.

• Opinion

  Justices' Monsanto Decision May Fix A Preemption Mistake

  

  In Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, the U.S. Supreme Court will address whether federal law preempts states' label-based failure-to-warn claims when federal regulators have not required a warning — and its decision could correct a long-standing misinterpretation of a prior high court ruling, thus ending myriad meritless state law personal injury claims, says Lawrence Ebner at Capital Appellate.

• Tips From Del. Decision Nixing Major Earnout Damages Award

  

  The Delaware Supreme Court recently vacated in part the largest earnout-related damages award in Delaware history, making clear that the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be used to rescue parties from drafting choices where the relevant regulatory risk was foreseeable at signing, say attorneys at Sullivan & Cromwell.

• What's At Stake In Possible Circuit Split On Medicaid Rule

  

  A recent Eleventh Circuit decision, reviving Florida's lawsuit against a federal rule that reduces Medicaid funding based on agreements between hospitals, sets up a potential circuit split with the Fifth Circuit, with important ramifications for states looking to private administrators to run provider tax programs, say Liz Goodman, Karuna Seshasai and Rebecca Pitt at FTI Consulting.

• Takeaways From 8th Circ. Ruling On Worker's 'BLM' Display

  

  The Eighth Circuit's recent decision in Home Depot v. National Labor Relations Board, finding that Home Depot legally prohibited an employee from displaying Black Lives Matter messaging on his uniform, reaffirms employers' right to restrict politically sensitive material, but should not be read as a blank check, say attorneys at Hunton.

• NC Ruling Shows Mallory's Evolving Effects For Policyholders

  

  A recent North Carolina decision, PDII v. Sky Aircraft, demonstrates how the U.S. Supreme Court's consequential jurisdiction decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern may permit suits against insurers anywhere they do business so long as the forum state has a business registration statute that requires submitting to in-state lawsuits, says Christopher Popecki at Pillsbury.

• Malpractice Claim Assignability Continues To Divide Courts

  

  Recent decisions from courts across the country demonstrate how different jurisdictions balance competing policy interests in determining whether legal malpractice claims can be assigned, providing a framework to identify when and how to challenge any attempted assignment, says Christopher Blazejewski at Sherin & Lodgen.

• Tips For Financial Advisers Facing TRO From Former Firm

  

  The Eighth Circuit's recent decision in Choreo v. Lors, overturning a lower court's sweeping injunction after financial advisers moved to a new firm, gives advisers new strategies to fight restraining orders from their old firms, such as focusing on whether the alleged irreparable harm is calculable, say attorneys at Kutak Rock.

• Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Closure Highlights Labor Law Stakes

  

  The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's recently announced closure, after the U.S. Supreme Court denied relief from an injunction mandating that the newspaper restore terms from its previous collective bargaining agreement, illustrates that prematurely declaring an impasse and implementing unilateral changes carries risk, says Sunshine Fellows at Freeman Mathis.

• Unpacking Dormant Commerce Clause Cannabis Circuit Split

  

  Federal courts have reached differing conclusions as to whether state-legal cannabis is subject to the dormant commerce clause, with four opinions across three circuit courts in the last year demonstrating the continued salience of the dormant commerce clause debate to the nation's cannabis industry, regulators and policymakers, say attorneys at Perkins Coie.

• Texas AG Wields Consumer Protection Law Against Tech Cos.

  

  Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has targeted technology companies using the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, a broadly worded statute that gives the attorney general wide latitude to pursue claims beyond traditional consumer protection, creating unique litigation risks, say attorneys at Yetter Coleman.

• Emerging Themes In Nevada High Court Civil Litigation

  

  The Nevada Supreme Court issued a series of significant civil rulings in 2025 that reflect recurring themes: a restrained approach to personal jurisdiction, heightened expectations of professionalism, close scrutiny of trial conduct, and a willingness to enforce contractual provisions that other jurisdictions might reject, says Michael Lowry at Wilson Elser.

• What To Know As Courts Rethink McDonnell-Douglas

  

  Although the U.S. Supreme Court declined the latest opportunity to address the viability of the McDonnell-Douglas burden-shifting framework used in employment discrimination and retaliation claims, two justices and courts around the country are increasingly seeking to abandon it, which could potentially lead to more trials and higher litigation budgets, say attorneys at Jackson Lewis.

• A Primer On Law Enforcement Self-Defense Doctrine

  

  In the wake of several shootings by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis, misconceptions persist about what the laws governing police use of force actually permit, and it’s essential for legal practitioners to understand the contours of the underlying constitutional doctrine, says Markus Funk at White & Case.

• Series

  Teaching Logic Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Teaching middle and high school students the skills to untangle complicated arguments and identify faulty reasoning has made me reacquaint myself with the defined structure of thought, reminding me why logic should remain foundational in the practice of law, says Tom Barrow at Woods Rogers.