Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  High Court's Hain Ruling Undermines Diversity Jurisdiction

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's most recent decision on the limits of federal jurisdiction, Hain Celestial Group v. Palmquist, further legitimizes the plaintiffs bar's long practice of intentionally pleading around diversity jurisdiction — and could have far-reaching implications for how future product liability and consumer fraud cases are litigated, say attorneys at Patterson Belknap.

• The Benefits Of Choosing A Niche Practice In The AI Age

  

  As artificial intelligence becomes increasingly accessible, lawyers with a niche practice may stand out as clients seek specialized judgment that automation cannot replicate, but it is important to choose a niche that is durable, engaging and a good personal fit, says Daniel Borneman at Lowenstein Sandler.

• Risk Disclosure Lessons For AI Cos. From Dot-Com Era

  

  Regulatory responses following the dot-com collapse reflected a consistent emphasis on whether public disclosures enabled investors to understand the economic reality underlying reported performance, a focus that is likely to shape how artificial intelligence infrastructure disclosures are evaluated if market expectations similarly deteriorate, say Diana Connor, Adrienna Huffman and Bin Zhou at the Brattle Group.

• The Practical Implications Of New FDIC Stablecoin Measures

  

  The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.'s recent proposal to create a formal process for issuing payment stablecoins arrives with several practical implications for FDIC‑supervised banks pursuing digital asset strategies, including a safe harbor for early applicants and a focus on ownership and governance, say attorneys at Troutman.

• 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.

• Trial Advocacy Lessons From 3 Oscar-Nominated Films

  

  Several films up for best picture at this weekend’s Academy Awards provide useful tips for trial lawyers, from the power of a dramatic opening to the importance of pivoting when the unexpected happens, say attorneys at Robins Kaplan.

• 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.

• Ill. Swipe Fee Ruling Sets Stage For A High-Stakes Appeal

  

  In Illinois Bankers Association v. Raoul, an Illinois federal court upheld the state's ban on credit and debit card swipe fees on tax and tip payments, while permanently enjoining the statute's data usage limitation, but an imminent appeal could significantly influence the trajectory of state-level payments regulation, say attorneys at Latham.

• 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.

• Drug Wholesaler's DPA Shows Imperfect Efforts Still Count

  

  Atlantic Biologicals’ recent deferred prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors for allegedly distributing controlled substances to pill mill pharmacies demonstrates that even subpar cooperation, when combined with genuine remediation and strategic advocacy, can yield outcomes that protect a company's long-term interests, says Jonathan Porter at Husch Blackwell.

• 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.

• Assessing Ruling On SEC Industry Bars In Post-Jarkesy World

  

  According to a D.C. federal court in Sztrom v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court's 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy did not eliminate the commission's ability to pursue industry bars through administrative follow-on proceedings, a major blow for future Article 3 challenges — so long as it stands, say attorneys at Venable.

• Character.AI Case Highlights Agentic AI Liability Questions

  

  The recently settled litigation against Character Technologies Inc. provides an early case study for exploring salient legal issues related to agentic artificial intelligence, such as tort liability, strict liability, statutory liability and contractual liability, says Samuel Mitchells at Smith Gambrell.