Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  Justices' Parole Ruling Degrades Green Card Holders' Rights

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Blanche v. Lau, holding that U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers can parole a returning lawful permanent resident without clear and convincing evidence of a crime, weakens the statutory and practical protections Congress intended, say attorneys at Cyrus D. Mehta & Partners.

• 3rd Circ. ERISA Ruling Stresses Process Over Perfect Returns

  

  The Third Circuit's recent decision in Quest Diagnostics affirms that a sound fiduciary process — not perfect investment returns — defeats Employee Retirement Income Security Act claims, signaling that courts will keep scrutinizing how fiduciaries decide, and sponsors who can show their work should remain protected, say attorneys at Nixon Peabody.

• Fed. Circ. Licensing Rulings Shed Light On Patentee Standing

  

  Two recent decisions from the Federal Circuit provide a useful framework for evaluating whether a patent license agreement preserves a sufficient exclusionary interest to support future patent infringement claims, say attorneys at Venable.

• Asylum Ruling Signals Larger Separation Of Powers Battle

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Mullin v. Al Otro Lado that border officials may turn away asylum-seekers without inspection is part of a broader conversation about the reach of institutional safeguards that subject governmental authority to legal constraint, says Dree Collopy at American University's Washington College of Law.

• Solar's Momentum At Mid-2026 Will Help It Overcome Snags

  

  The rapid expansion of U.S. solar development in the first half of 2026 is likely to continue its pace, even amid ongoing shifts in federal trade policy and supply chain regulations, obstacles to permitting reform, and an increasing divide between states enacting policies to encourage or stymie project development, say attorneys at Beveridge & Diamond.

• How Justices Stayed Off The Geofence In Location Data Case

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent Chatrie v. United States decision reaffirms Fourth Amendment protections for location data but avoids more complicated questions about geofence warrants, say attorneys at Adams Duerk.

• Remote Work Rulings Show ADA Fights Hinge On Process

  

  Two opposite outcomes in recent Fifth Circuit and D.C. federal court cases underscore that the legality of denying employees' disability accommodation requests for remote work depends less on broad policy and more on how it's applied, says Paul Sweeney at Ice Miller.

• Fed Autonomy Rests On Narrow Exception After Justices Rule

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Trump v. Cook and Trump v. Slaughter expand presidential removal power while temporarily preserving the Federal Reserve’s independence, but there is uncertainty about which of the Fed’s authorities fall within the court’s narrow monetary-policy exception, says Keith Bradley at Squire Patton.

• Series

  Being A Magician Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  The skills I've developed as a lifelong magician have translated directly into tangible benefits in the courtroom because performing magic and trying cases both live at the intersection of psychology, storytelling, timing and disciplined rehearsal, says Mark Dombroff at Fox Rothschild.

• How Litigants Are Testing Conversion Therapy Ruling's Scope

  

  Litigants are already using the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Chiles v. Salazar ruling, which applied strict scrutiny to Colorado’s conversion therapy ban, to challenge laws limiting algorithmic rental pricing, artificial intelligence-based discrimination and anti-union employer speech, and courts must soon decide Chiles’ First Amendment limits, say attorneys at O'Melveny.

• How Justices' TPS Ruling Affects Workforce Planning

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent holding in Mullin v. Doe that courts lack jurisdiction to review temporary protected status determinations greenlights the end of TPS for thousands of Syrian and Haitian nationals, and means employers must reevaluate TPS-designees' employability while avoiding discriminatory document practices, says attorney Richard Herman.

• How Pfizer Won Fed. Circ. Patent Dispute By 1 Carbon Atom

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent refusal to revive a patent in Enanta Pharmaceuticals v. Pfizer over an alleged typo creating a one-atom difference in a COVID-19 treatment application hands defendants a template for potentially converting a triable fact question into an early dispositive ruling, say attorneys at Polsinelli.

• What To Know Before Justices Rule In Title IX Employee Case

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to decide whether Title IX protections extend to employees alleging sex discrimination in Crowther v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, which could have significant implications for higher education institutions and their employees, say attorneys at Ropes & Gray.

• Fed. Circ. Ruling Highlights The Cost Of Incorrect Inventorship

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Fortress Iron v. Digger Specialties, affirming that a fencing company's patents were invalid due to a missing co-inventor, is a reminder that confirming correct inventorship should be a critical part of every patent invalidity workup, say attorneys at Neal Gerber.

• Future Of Fed Independence Shaky After Justices' Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in Trump v. Cook preserved the Federal Reserve's formal independence but could invite the president to remove board members with just modest protections, leaving the central bank's autonomy uncertain and potentially setting up fresh clashes over other agencies, says Steven Schwinn at the University of Chicago.