Expert Analysis

• Section 122 Tariffs Show Shift In Strategy, Not Trade Policy

  

  By imposing temporary tariffs under Section 122 of the Trade Act as a stopgap measure while it pivots to less transitory statutory authorities, the Trump administration sent a clear message that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump, invalidating duties imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, will not precipitate a change in policy direction, say attorneys at Snell & Wilmer.

• Decoding Arbitral Disputes: UK Top Court On State Immunity

  

  The U.K. Supreme Court's recent ruling denying Spain's and Zimbabwe's bids to escape arbitration awards using state immunity claims provides significant clarification of the relationship between sovereign immunity and the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes system, and reinforces the finality and enforceability of ICSID awards, says Josep Galvez at 4-5 Gray's Inn.

• What To Know About Supreme Court's New Recusal Rules

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court recently announced three major revisions to its rules, effective March 16, that appear designed to streamline the court's own review for potential conflicts and allow the justices to recuse themselves earlier in the process, say attorneys at Weil.

• 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.