FLSA Interpretation Patterns Emerge 1 Year After Loper Bright

One year after the U.S. Supreme Court's monumental decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, four distinct avenues of judicial decision-making have taken shape among lower courts that are responding to their newfound freedom in interpreting the Fair Labor Standards Act through U.S. Department of Labor regulations, say attorneys at Kutak Rock.

A Pattern Emerges In Justices' Evaluation Of Veteran Statute

The recent Soto v. U.S. decision that the statute of limitations for certain military-related claims does not apply to combat-related special compensation exemplifies the U.S. Supreme Court's view, emerging in two other recent opinions, that it is a reviewing court's obligation to determine the best interpretation of the language used by Congress, says attorney Kenneth Carpenter.

Fed. Circ. In May: Evaluating Opportunistic Trademark Filings

The Federal Circuit's decision last month in the "US Space Force" trademark case gives the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board additional clarity when working through opportunistic trademark filings, particularly when the mark's value is primarily due to the potential value of a false connection, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

Opinion

Senate's 41% Litigation Finance Tax Would Hurt Legal System

The Senate’s latest version of the Big Beautiful Bill Act would impose a 41% tax on the litigation finance industry, but the tax is totally disconnected from the concerns it purports to address, and it would set the country back to a time when small plaintiffs had little recourse against big defendants, says Anthony Sebok at Cardozo School of Law.

Drawbacks For Taxpayers From Justices' Levy Dispute Ruling

The Supreme Court's June decision in Commissioner v. Zuch, holding the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to resolve disputes where the IRS has stopped pursuing a levy, may require taxpayers to explore new tactics for mitigating the increased difficulty of appealing their liability via collection due process hearings, says Matthew Roberts at Meadows Collier.

In NRC Ruling, Justices Affirm Hearing Process Still Matters

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas safeguards the fairness, clarity and predictability of the regulatory system by affirming that to challenge an agency's decision in court, litigants must first meaningfully participate in the hearing process that Congress and the agency have established, says Jonathan Rund at the Nuclear Energy Institute.

What Baseball Can Teach Criminal Attys About Rule Of Lenity

Judges tend to assess ambiguous criminal laws not unlike how baseball umpires approach checked swings, so defense attorneys should consider how to best frame their arguments to maximize courts' willingness to invoke the rule of lenity, wherein a tie goes to the defendant, says Jonathan Porter at Husch Blackwell.

Tips For Litigating Apex Doctrine Disputes Amid Controversy

Litigants once took for granted that deposition requests of high-ranking corporate officers required a greater showing of need than for lower-level witnesses, but the apex doctrine has proven controversial in recent years, and fights over such depositions will be won by creative lawyers adapting their arguments to this particular moment, say attorneys at Hangley Aronchick.

Series

Performing As A Clown Makes Me A Better Lawyer

To say that being a clown in the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade has changed my legal career would truly be an understatement — by creating an opening to converse on a unique topic, it has allowed me to connect with clients, counsel and even judges on a deeper level, says Charles Tatelbaum at Tripp Scott.

9th Circ. Ruling Is Turning Point For Private Funds In 401(k)s

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Anderson v. Intel reinforces that the Employee Retirement Income Security Act's duty of prudence permits fiduciaries to use private market assets in diversified funds, yet it also exposes the persistent litigation and regulatory uncertainties that continue to temper wider adoption in 401(k) plans, say attorneys at Debevoise.

Perspectives

Justices' Sentencing Ruling Is More Of A Ripple Than A Wave

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week in Esteras v. U.S., limiting the factors that lower courts may consider in imposing prison sentences for supervised release violations, is symbolically important, but its real-world impact will likely be muted for several reasons, say attorneys at Perkins Coie.

DOJ Atty Firing Highlights Tension Between 2 Ethical Duties

The U.S. Department of Justice's recent firing of a prosecutor-turned-whistleblower involved in the Abrego Garcia v. Noem case illustrates the tricky balancing act between zealous client advocacy and a lawyer’s duty of candor to the court, which many clients fail to appreciate, says David Atkins at Yale Law School.

Series

Law School's Missed Lessons: Rejecting Biz Dev Myths

Law schools don’t spend sufficient time dispelling certain myths that prevent young lawyers from exploring new business opportunities, but by dismissing these misguided beliefs, even an introverted first-year associate with a small network of contacts can find long-term success, says Ronald Levine at Herrick Feinstein.

Trade In Limbo: The Legal Storm Reshaping Trump's Tariffs

In the final days of May, decisions in two significant court actions upended the tariff and trade landscape, so until the U.S. Supreme Court rules, businesses and supply chains should expect tariffs to remain in place, and for the Trump administration to continue pursuing and enforcing all available trade policies, say attorneys at Ice Miller.

Shareholder Takeaways From NY Internal Affairs Doctrine Suit

A May New York Court of Appeals decision in Ezrasons v. Rudd involving Barclays — affirming the state's "firmly entrenched" internal affairs doctrine — is a win for all corporate stakeholders seeking stability in resolving disputes between shareholders and directors and officers, say attorneys at Sadis & Goldberg.