Expert Analysis

• 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.

• Why SDNY May Be Dusting Off The Financial Kingpin Statute

  

  The Southern District of New York’s recent fraud indictments against executives of bankrupt companies Tricolor and First Brands have seemingly revived the Continuing Financial Crimes Enterprise statute, and if the cases succeed, prosecutors across the country will have ample reason to reach for this long-dormant tool, say attorneys at Lankler Siffert & Wohl.

• What Kalshi Cases Reveal About State Authority, Regulation

  

  Prediction markets like Kalshi have ignited complex legal battles that get to the heart of how novel financial products intersect with traditional state enforcement authority, and courts are already beginning to divide over whether federal law preempts state enforcement authority restricting these offerings, say attorneys at Holtzman Vogel.

• How Recent Del. Rulings Clarify M&A Deal Fraud Carveouts

  

  Two recent Delaware decisions have provided clarity regarding when a party can or cannot rely on representations made during the course of an M&A transaction, particularly on the scope and enforceability of antireliance provisions, and on representations they knew or should have known were false, says Anthony Boccamazzo at Olshan Frome.

• High Court's 'Skinny Label' Case May Tackle Wider Questions

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's upcoming decision in Hikma v. Amarin will have important ramifications for broader debates over what defines a generic version of a drug, and the pending case is already altering patent practice, say attorneys at Taft.

• Aligning Microsoft Tools With NYC Bar AI Recording Guidance

  

  The New York City Bar Association’s recently issued formal opinion, providing ethical guidance on artificial intelligence-assisted recording, transcription and summarization, raises immediate questions about data governance and e-discovery for companies that use Microsoft 365 and Copilot, say Staci Kaliner, Martin Tully and John Collins at Redgrave.

• 11th Circ. NextEra Ruling Broadens Loss Causation Standard

  

  The Eleventh Circuit's recent Jastram v. NextEra Energy decision significantly expands the loss causation standard at the motion-to-dismiss stage and may lead to suits predicated on more tenuous connections between company disclosures and alleged misstatements, say attorneys at Sidley.

• Class Actions At The Circuit Courts: March Lessons

  

  In this month's review of class action appeals, Mitchell Engel at Shook Hardy discusses four recent rulings from January and identifies practice tips from cases involving allegations of violations of consumer fraud regulations, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, employment law and breach of contract statutes.

• Where 5th Circ. Ruling Fits In ERISA Arbitration Landscape

  

  The Fifth Circuit's recent decision in Parrott v. International Bancshares, holding that an Employee Retirement Income Security Act plan may consent to arbitration, must be understood against the backdrop of a developing body of appellate authority addressing ERISA arbitration, say attorneys at Gibson Dunn.