Expert Analysis

• High Court Ruling Casts Doubt On Status-Based Gun Bans

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in U.S. v. Hemani demonstrates that the justices are increasingly skeptical of broad theories of categorical disarmament and clarifies that dangerousness cannot simply be presumed from one's status or membership in a statutory category, such as illegal drug use, says Lee Francis at Widener Law.

• Why Highly Specialized Experts May Risk Exclusion At Trial

  

  Expert witnesses with highly specific areas of focus may be vulnerable to exclusion in court, making it important for attorneys to check how potential witnesses' qualifications can be bolstered by their publications and other professional activities, say Evan Weisberg and Christopher Cunio at Hunton, and Kevin Cahill at FTI Consulting.

• Steps For Employers After 7th Circ. BIPA Retroactivity Ruling

  

  The Seventh Circuit's recent ruling in Clay v. Union Pacific sharply limits per-scan statutory damages theories in pending Biometric Information Privacy Act cases by retroactively applying a 2024 amendment, but employers should not mistake the holding for a broad safe harbor, say attorneys at Thompson Coburn.

• How NEPA Review Has Changed Since Seven County

  

  A year after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County instituted major changes to judicial review under the National Environmental Policy Act, courts are effectively applying the decision, but where things go from here may be up to agencies and project proponents, say attorneys at Venable.

• A Midyear Look At Antiterrorism Act Jurisprudence And Policy

  

  Plaintiffs have filed comparably fewer new actions under the Antiterrorism Act this year, though a handful of key decisions further defined the statute’s aiding-and-abetting standard and highlighted continuing risks for financial services companies, say attorneys at Skadden.

• Justices' ICA Ruling Provides Certainty For Regulated Funds

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling in FS Credit v. Saba that a contract-rescission provision of the Investment Company Act does not provide investors with a private right of action is a victory for the regulated fund industry, emphasizing that where Congress intended to create private remedies, it did so expressly, say attorneys at Simpson Thacher.

• Justices' Obstruction Ruling Clears Venue-Challenge Path

  

  While the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Abouammo v. U.S. poses venue challenges for federal obstruction of justice prosecutions, it is a gift for defense counsel because it offers a clean, constitutional basis to challenge venue where a place of falsification and a place of investigation diverge, says Liz Aloi at MoFo.

• Drawing A Line Between Settlement Pressure And Extortion

  

  U.S. v. Luo, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, may force courts to address anew when settlement negotiations become criminal extortion, particularly in the age of easily fabricated digital evidence, says attorney Denis Kiely.

• Recent Cases Clarify When Risk Disclosures Trigger Liability

  

  Several recent decisions highlight circumstances where risk disclosures can constitute actionable misrepresentations, providing clarity on how the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act's safe harbor and the common-law bespeaks caution doctrine apply to risk disclosures, and how publicly traded companies can guard against such claims, say attorneys at Katten.

• Securities Class Cert., 5 Years After Goldman Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Goldman Sachs Group v. Arkansas Teacher Retirement System has not only armed defendants in securities cases with more arguments in individual class certification fights, but may also be providing greater certainty and finality in class certification battles, say attorneys at Skadden.

• Opinion

  Md., Colo. Climate Rulings Point To Need For Federal Solution

  

  As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review the Colorado Supreme Court's 2025 ruling in Boulder County v. Suncor U.S. Inc., which green-lit a state-level climate lawsuit, a recent conflicting ruling from the Maryland Supreme Court underscores why a uniform federal answer on climate litigation is needed now, says Phil Goldberg at Shook Hardy.

• High Court's FCC Ruling Adds To Comms Industry Paradox

  

  The Supreme Court's recent decision in Federal Communications Commission v. AT&T, finding that the FCC's informal forfeiture process survives Seventh Amendment scrutiny, opens some doors for regulated entities, but the practical effect may be surprisingly constrained, says Jonathan Marashlian at The CommLaw Group.

• Series

  Founding An Autism Academy Made Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Starting a nonprofit autism school with no building, no funding model and no guarantee that families would trust us taught me the importance of mission, patience and purpose — lessons that sharpened my practice and showed how meaningful work outside the office can make lawyers better, says Phillip Russell at Ogletree Deakins.

• Why Private Sector Should Watch Gov't DEI Firing Class Bid

  

  Former federal employees' class certification attempt in Fell v. Trump is worth following, as their challenge of the Office of Personnel Management's elimination of DEI positions raises questions about commonality in employee classes and protections for nonminority advocacy that reach beyond the public sector, says Shaun Southworth at Southworth PC.

• When Do Murals Qualify For IP Protection?

  

  Artist Robert Wyland recently sued FIFA for painting over his 1999 "Ocean Life" mural to make room for a World Cup promotion in Dallas, spotlighting questions over the extent to which copyright law and the Visual Artists Rights Act protect different types of art, say attorneys at Armstrong Teasdale.