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.

Series

Mich. Banking Brief: All The Notable Legal Updates In Q2

The second quarter brought several notable financial services law developments to Michigan, including a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on state tax foreclosures, progress on a money transmission modernization bill package, and continued legislative momentum on cryptocurrency and mortgage lending, say attorneys at Dykema.

Justices' Ruling Alters Playing Field For State Subpoena Suits

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport will spark more federal court challenges to state subpoenas, but procedural defenses will block some merits decisions, so plaintiffs must carefully time and manage parallel federal and state proceedings, say attorneys at Troutman.

Looking At Drake's Diss Track Appeal Through An IP Lens

Though Drake's pending Second Circuit appeal over UMG's promotion of Kendrick Lamar's "Not Like Us" is formally about defamation, it shows that IP considerations can help identify records showing how a work traveled, which may guide courts when deciding context, says attorney Abdul Abdullahi.

Series

Bass Fishing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

Landing a trophy striped bass and closing a big deal both require cultivating the patience to finesse — not force — your way to desired outcomes, changing course when your old approach isn’t working and learning from the ones that got away, says Jon Ruiss at Alston & Bird.

Series

NY Banking Brief: All The Notable Legal Updates In Q2

The year's second quarter brought several notable banking law developments to New York, including a proposal to align state stablecoin rules with the federal Genius Act, fresh fair lending and cybersecurity guidance from state regulators, and a significant Second Circuit holding on preemption, say attorneys at Ashurst Perkins Coie.

PacifiCorp Ruling Shows Limits Of Aggregate Wildfire Loss Models

An Oregon appeals court's recent decision in James v. PacifiCorp illustrates that in litigation involving multiple wildfires, materially different causation theories, and evidence tied to particular fires and locations, a single undifferentiated damages model is vulnerable to attack, say Paige Van Oosten and Jason Kim at Hunton and Kevin Cahill at FTI Consulting.

Roundup

The Most Talked-About Supreme Court Decisions Of 2026

This term, 11 U.S. Supreme Court decisions quickly became hot topics among Law360's guest writers.

A New Defense For Medicaid Fraud Cases In Texas

The Texas Supreme Court decision in LabCorp v. Texas last month, finding that the state's False Claims Act requires proof that an omission is material, is among the first to establish that the government's lack of reaction to the defendant's disclosures rendered alleged omissions immaterial, say attorneys at Sheppard.

Fighting The Evidentiary Risks Of Deepfakes In Court

Though courts and federal rules are only slowly developing frameworks for assessing digital evidence that could have been created or generated by artificial intelligence, litigators should understand what steps they'll likely need to take to successfully challenge potentially deepfaked exhibits — and fight questions about the authenticity of their own, say attorneys at MoFo.