Expert Analysis

• What Justices' Bowe Ruling Could Mean For Federal Prisoners

  

  Bowe v. U.S. — set for oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court on Oct. 14 — presents the high court with two consequential questions about the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act's successive-petition regime that will be immediately relevant to federal postconviction practice, says attorney Elizabeth Franklin-Best.

• Why Justices Seem Inclined To Curtail Del. Affidavit Statute

  

  After recent oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Berk v. Choy — asking whether Delaware's affidavit-of-merit statute applies in federal diversity actions, or whether the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure displace the state requirement — it appears the court is poised to simplify the standard approach, says Eric Weitz of The Weitz Law Firm.

• Series

  Adapting To Private Practice: 3 Tips On Finding The Right Job

  

  After 23 years as a state and federal prosecutor, when I contemplated moving to a law firm, practicing solo or going in-house, I found there's a critical first step — deep self-reflection on what you truly want to do and where your strengths lie, says Rachael Jones at McKool Smith.

• Justices May Decide Whether Restitution Is A Punishment

  

  Forthcoming oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Ellingburg v. U.S. will focus on whether criminal restitution qualifies as criminal punishment under the U.S. Constitution — a key question as restitution has expanded in reach and severity, while providing little meaningful compensation for victims, says Lula Hagos at George Washington University Law School.

• Series

  Painting Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Painting trains me to see both the fine detail and the whole composition at once, enabling me to identify friction points while keeping sight of a client's bigger vision, but the most significant lesson I've brought to my legal work has been the value of originality, says Jana Gouchev at Gouchev Law.

• What's At Stake At High Court For Presidential Removal Power

  

  Two pending U.S. Supreme Court cases —Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook — raise fundamental questions about the constitutional separation of powers, threaten the 90-year-old precedent of Humphrey's Executor v. U.S. and will determine the president's authority to control independent federal agencies, says Kolya Glick at Arnold & Porter.

• Courts Are Still Grappling With McDonnell, 9 Years Later

  

  The Seventh and D.C. Circuits’ recent decisions in U.S. v. Weiss and U.S. v. Paitsel, respectively, demonstrate that courts are still struggling to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling in McDonnell v. U.S., which narrowed the scope of “official acts” in federal bribery cases, say attorneys at Quinn Emanuel.

• Calif. Justices Usher In Stricter Era For Wage Law Ignorance

  

  In Iloff v. LaPaille, the California Supreme Court determined that neither an employer's ignorance of wage obligations nor a worker agreeing to an unconventional arrangement is sufficient to establish good faith, demonstrating that the era of casual wage arrangements without legal vetting is over, says Brandy Alonzo-Mayland at Michelman & Robinson.

• Protecting Sensitive Court Filings After Recent Cyber Breach

  

  In the wake of a recent cyberattack on federal courts' Case Management/Electronic Case Files system, civil litigants should consider seeking enhanced protections for sensitive materials filed under seal to mitigate the risk of unauthorized exposure, say attorneys at Redgrave.

• Means-Plus-Function Terms In Software Claims May Be Risky

  

  Though the Federal Circuit recently reversed a decision rejecting a set of means-plus-function software claims as lacking sufficient structure, practitioners who proceed under this holding may run into indefiniteness problems if they do not consider other Federal Circuit holdings related to the definiteness requirement, says Jeffrey Danley at Seed IP Law Group.

• Wash. Ruling Raises Pay Transparency Litigation Risk

  

  Washington Supreme Court’s recent decision in Branson v. Washington Fine Wine and Spirits, affirming applicants standing to sue regardless of their intent in applying, broadens state employers' already broad exposure — even when compared to other states with pay transparency laws, say attorneys at Hunton.

• Why Feds' Criminal Vehicle Tampering Theory Falls Short

  

  In recent years, federal regulators have advanced a novel theory that reprogramming a vehicle's onboard diagnostics system is a crime under the Clean Air Act — but a case now pending in the Ninth Circuit shows that the government's position is questionable for a host of reasons, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• High Court Right-To-Counsel Case Could Have Seismic Impact

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in Villarreal v. Texas about whether prohibiting testimony discussions between defendants and their counsel during an overnight recess violates the Sixth Amendment, and the eventual decision could impose a barrier in the attorney-client relationship, say attorneys at Arnold & Porter.

• Gauging SEC Short-Sale Rules' Future After 5th Circ. Remand

  

  Though the Fifth Circuit recently remanded to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission two Biden-era rules requiring disclosure of securities lending and short-sale activity in order to consider the rules' cumulative economic impact, it's possible they will get reproposed, meaning compliance timelines could change, says Scott Budlong at Barnes & Thornburg.

• High Court Firearm Case Tests Limits Of Double Jeopardy

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments next week on the double jeopardy implications of overlapping federal gun statutes in Barrett v. U.S., and its ultimate decision could either erode a key shield in defense practitioners’ arsenals or provide strong constitutional grounds to challenge duplicative charges, says Sharon Appelbaum at Appelbaum Law.