Expert Analysis

• Args In APA Case Amplify Justices' Focus On Agency Power

  

  In arguments last week in Corner Post v. Federal Reserve, the U.S. Supreme Court justices paid particular importance to the possible ripple effects of their decision, which will address when a facial challenge to long-standing federal rules under the Administrative Procedure Act first accrues and could thus unleash a flood of new lawsuits, say attorneys at Snell & Wilmer.

• After TikTok, Tiptoeing Toward Patent Transfer Alignment

  

  Following the Fifth Circuit's TikTok decision, which aimed to standardize transfer analysis in patent cases, the Federal Circuit and Texas federal courts facing transfer requests have taken small steps to consider the practical realities of patent litigation, reinforcing the intensely factual focus of the analysis, says Charles Fowler at McKool Smith.

• Mitigating Whistleblower Risks After High Court UBS Ruling

  

  While it is always good practice for companies to periodically review whistleblower trainings, policies and procedures, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent whistleblower-friendly ruling in Murray v. UBS Securities helps demonstrate their importance in reducing litigation risk, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• What Recent Setbacks In Court Mean For Enviro Justice

  

  Two courts in Louisiana last month limited the federal government's ability to require consideration of Civil Rights Act disparate impacts when evaluating state-issued permits — likely providing a framework for opposition to environmental justice initiatives in other states, say attorneys at King & Spalding.

• Perspectives

  Justices' Double Jeopardy Ruling Preserves Acquittal Sanctity

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision last week in McElrath v. Georgia, barring the state from retrying a man acquitted of murder after a so-called repugnant verdict, is significant in the tangled web of double jeopardy jurisprudence for its brief and unequivocal protection of an acquittal’s finality, says Lissa Griffin at Pace Law School.

• Setting The Stage For High Court BofA Escrow Interest Case

  

  Dori Bailey and Curtis Johnson at Bond Schoeneck examine relevant legislation and case law dating back 200 years ahead of oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday in Cantero v. Bank of America, the outcome of which will determine whether state laws governing mortgage escrow accounts can be enforced against national banks.

• High Court Forfeiture Case Again Pits Text Against Purpose

  

  In oral arguments Tuesday in McIntosh v. U.S., the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether a federal court can impose asset forfeiture on a defendant even if it doesn’t comply with timing rules, which may affect the broader interpretation of procedural deadlines — and tees up the latest battle between textualism and purposivism, say Anden Chow and Christian Bale at MoloLamken.

• Using Arbitration And Class Waivers As Privacy Suit Tools

  

  Amid a surge in data breach class actions over the last few years, several federal court decisions indicate that arbitration clauses and class action waiver provisions can be possible alternatives to public court battles and potentially reduce the costs of privacy litigation, say Mark Olthoff and Courtney Klaus at Polsinelli.

• 6 Pointers For Attys To Build Trust, Credibility On Social Media

  

  In an era of information overload, attorneys can use social media strategically — from making infographics to leveraging targeted advertising — to cut through the noise and establish a reputation among current and potential clients, says Marly Broudie at SocialEyes Communications.

• Justices Stay The Course In Maritime Choice-Of-Law Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's narrowly drawn decision in Great Lakes Insurance v. Raiders Retreat Realty, enforcing the underlying insurance contract's choice-of-law provision, carefully distinguishes those provisions from forum selection clauses, and ensures that courts will not apply its precepts outside the maritime context, says John Coyle at the University of North Carolina.

• More Than Drugs At Stake In High Court's 'Blind Mule' Case

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's eventual decision in Diaz v. U.S., evaluating whether expert witnesses may testify that most defendants caught with drugs at the border know they are transporting drugs, could have implications for prosecuting everything from complex financial crimes to gun and drug cases, says Kenneth Notter at MoloLamken.

• Why Fla. High Court Adopting Apex Doctrine Is Monumental

  

  The Florida Supreme Court recently solidified the apex doctrine in the Sunshine State, an important development that extends the scope of the doctrine in the state to include both corporate and government officials, and formalizes the requirements for a high-level corporate official to challenge a request for a deposition, says Laura Renstrom at Holland & Knight.

• Why Biz Groups Disagree On Ending Chevron Deference

  

  Two amicus briefs filed in advance of last month's U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo highlight contrasting views on whether the doctrine of Chevron deference promotes or undermines the stable regulatory environment that businesses require, say Wyatt Kendall and Sydney Brogden at Morris Manning.

• Del. Ruling Stands Out In Thorny Noncompete Landscape

  

  In Cantor Fitzgerald v. Ainslie, the Delaware Supreme Court last month upheld the enforceability of forfeiture-for-competition provisions in limited partnership agreements, providing a noteworthy opinion amid a time of increasing disfavor toward noncompetes and following a string of Chancery Court rulings deeming them unreasonable, say Margaret Butler and Steven Goldberg at BakerHostetler.

• Class Actions At The Circuit Courts: February Lessons

  

  In this month's review of class action appeals, Mitchell Engel at Shook Hardy discusses five notable circuit court decisions on topics from property taxes to veteran's rights — and provides key takeaways for counsel on issues including class representative intervention, wage-and-hour dispute evidence and ascertainability requirements.