Expert Analysis

• In Hain, Justices Increase Stakes For Jurisdictional Errors

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist, addressing the consequences of a district court's erroneous dismissal of a nondiverse party before final judgment, has amplified the risk that a mistaken jurisdictional ruling in district court will render moot everything that comes after, says Steven Boranian at Reed Smith.

• What The CFTC's Event Contracts Amicus Brief Is Missing

  

  The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission's recent amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit's North American Derivatives Exchange v. Nevada case declines to define the boundary between swaps and wagers, leaving market participants, exchanges and intermediaries operating within a regulatory framework whose boundaries remain undrawn, says Tamara de Silva at De Silva Law Offices.

• Series

  Podcasting Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Podcasting has changed how I ask questions and connect with people, sharpening my ability to listen without interrupting or prejudging, and bringing me closer to what law is meant to be: a human profession grounded in understanding, judgment and trust, says Donna DiMaggio Berger at Becker.

• Justices' GEO Ruling Sets Gov't Contractor Immunity Limits

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in GEO Group v. Menocal will affect virtually every case in which a government contractor faces liability because they can no longer routinely assert their immunity under the government contract and must instead make a showing on the merits, says Terry Collingsworth at International Rights Advocates.

• Job Shift Accommodation Ruling Clarifies 'Essential Function'

  

  In Siebrecht v. Mercy Health-Iowa, the Eighth Circuit's recent denial of a disabled worker's shift exemption request shows that the essential function of a job can encompass more than core job requirements and include things like scheduling flexibility, says Kim Kirn at Miles Mediation & Arbitration.

• 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.