Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  Birthright Citizenship Dissents Belie Originalist Interpretation

  

  The three dissents in the U.S. Supreme Court's recent birthright citizenship decision clashed with originalist readings of the Constitution, applying the 14th Amendment more narrowly than its drafters, and by applying contemporary and living document approaches to constitutional interpretation, says Ediberto Roman at Florida International University.

• Navigating The Limits Of Calif. Justices' Public Pension Ruling

  

  Despite the California Supreme Court's recent holding that counties and cities wield discretion over classification and salary decisions for their public retirement board staff, it is important to remember that such authority is not unchecked as unreasonable rejections remain subject to judicial review, say attorneys at Reed Smith.

• 3 Rulings Show High Court's Transnational Litigation Stance

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's most recent term closed with three consequential decisions for transnational litigation that illustrate the court's readiness to enforce a Congress-created cause of action for overseas conduct and unwillingness to create this liability itself, say attorneys at WilmerHale.

• Del. High Court Ruling Signals Next Post-Jarkesy Phase

  

  The Delaware Supreme Court recently ruled in Swan Energy v. Investor Protection Unit that the jury trial principles underlying the U.S. Supreme Court’s Jarkesy opinion do not compel the same result under the state's constitution, offering state courts a road map for the next phase of administrative enforcement litigation, says Benjamin Lajoie at Nelson Mullins.

• How 'Settled Expectations' Affect Amazon's Patent Program

  

  Whether the U.S. Supreme Court decides to weigh in on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's "settled expectations" framework could have significant consequences for how patent owners and accused sellers approach disputes in Amazon's patent evaluation process, says Barry Greenbaum at Olshan Frome.

• Fla. Justices Give Trial Judges More Dismissal Discretion

  

  The Florida Supreme Court's recent decision in Publix Supermarkets Inc. v. Goga confirmed that appellate courts should not apply a heightened standard when reviewing severe sanctions for fraud on the court, granting greater deference to trial courts, says Brent Hartman at RumbergerKirk.

• Opinion

  2nd Circ. Tylenol Ruling Misapplies Daubert Gatekeeping

  

  The Second Circuit's recent ruling in Rutledge v. Walgreen Co., holding that a lower court should not have excluded experts alleging links between prenatal acetaminophen use and autism, threatens to swallow the Daubert standard by limiting courts' consideration of scientific consensus in assessing reliability of expert testimony, say attorneys at Benesch.

• Limiting Employer Risk If Calif. Case Upends Time Rounding

  

  The California Supreme Court's holdings in recent years suggest that it may tighten the rules for — or even eliminate — time clock rounding when it decides Camp v. Home Depot, so employers should consider taking preemptive steps to guard against large potential liability, says Jacqueline Crispino at the Jhaveri-Weeks Firm.

• AG Watch: Va. Auto Renewal Law Clears Enforcement Path

  

  The most consequential aspect of recent amendments to Virginia's automatic renewal law is the enforcement authority it creates, giving the attorney general a clear statutory pathway to pursue cases involving subscription-related compliance failures under the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, says Chuck Slemp at Cozen O'Connor.

• 4th Circ. Boeing Class Cert. Ruling May Have Limited Reach

  

  While the Fourth Circuit's recent decision to reverse class certification against Boeing appears to potentially create a circuit split or heighten the standards for achieving class certification, that conclusion overlooks the decision's very specific circumstances, and its impact will likely be limited outside the circuit, say attorneys at Bleichmar Fonti.

• Fed. Circ.'s Shaping Of Tech Patent Doctrine Resembles EPO's

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Ceiva v. Amazon crystallizes an informal U.S. heuristic, "a technological solution to a technological problem," rewarding emphasis of a traceable chain from a problem to a solution — a lesson similar to the European Patent Office's "technical character" terminology, says Brandon Theiss at AddyHart.

• Opinion

  After Monsanto, Defense Bar Must Build Case Against Lohr

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Monsanto v. Durnell has helped to demolish the foundation for its problematic 1996 ruling in Medtronic v. Lohr — so now defense counsel should lay the groundwork for the high court to overturn Lohr, say attorneys at Blank Rome.

• Justices' FTC Ruling Weakens Qui Tam's Constitutional Base

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Trump v. Slaughter, expanding presidential control over those exercising executive power, suggests that courts may be receptive to arguments challenging the constitutional foundations of the False Claims Act’s qui tam mechanism, says Daniel Passeser at Wiggin.

• 9th Circ. Rule Block Unlikely To Deter FinCEN Cartel Focus

  

  The Ninth Circuit recently blocked the Financial Crimes Enforcement Unit's border cash reporting rule, interpreting it as an impermissible use of an emergency anti-money laundering tool, but regulators are more likely to see the opinion as a road map for building a more defensible rule, say attorneys at Bradley Arant.

• 5 Financial Statement Fraud Red Flags To Spot Post-Sripetch

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Sripetch v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that disgorgement exists to strip a wrongdoer of unjust enrichment, not merely to compensate victims for what they lost, shifting the work at the center of securities fraud cases in five ways, says Rand Manasse at Green Lane Partners.