Expert Analysis

• Opinion

  Birthright Citizenship Dissents Belie Originalist Interpretation

  

  The three dissents in the U.S. Supreme Court's recent birthright citizenship decision clashed with originalist readings of the Constitution, applying the 14th Amendment more narrowly than its drafters, and by applying contemporary and living document approaches to constitutional interpretation, says Ediberto Roman at Florida International University.

• Navigating The Limits Of Calif. Justices' Public Pension Ruling

  

  Despite the California Supreme Court's recent holding that counties and cities wield discretion over classification and salary decisions for their public retirement board staff, it is important to remember that such authority is not unchecked as unreasonable rejections remain subject to judicial review, say attorneys at Reed Smith.

• 3 Rulings Show High Court's Transnational Litigation Stance

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's most recent term closed with three consequential decisions for transnational litigation that illustrate the court's readiness to enforce a Congress-created cause of action for overseas conduct and unwillingness to create this liability itself, say attorneys at WilmerHale.

• California FAIR Plan Is Outgrowing Last-Resort Role

  

  With a recent rate increase, a litigation win and pending legislation to reshape operations, the California FAIR Plan is being regulated and reinforced as an apparent fixture of California's insurance market, rather than the temporary safety net originally intended, say attorneys at Jenner & Block.

• Limiting Employer Risk If Calif. Case Upends Time Rounding

  

  The California Supreme Court's holdings in recent years suggest that it may tighten the rules for — or even eliminate — time clock rounding when it decides Camp v. Home Depot, so employers should consider taking preemptive steps to guard against large potential liability, says Jacqueline Crispino at the Jhaveri-Weeks Firm.

• 5 Antitrust Lessons On Bundled Discounts After Medtronic

  

  The recent California federal court decision upholding a $381.7 million verdict against Medtronic offers practitioners a clearer road map for navigating bundled discount claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and the practical implications are substantial, say attorneys at Norton Rose.

• Calif. OppFi Suit Outlines Key Criteria For Bank Partnerships

  

  A California state court's recent ruling in OppFi v. Hewlett offers fintech-bank partnerships a blueprint for structuring lending programs to withstand future true lender challenges, while signaling that enforcement theories may face added scrutiny under the state's ban on underground regulations, say attorneys at Womble Bond.

• Fed. Circ.'s Shaping Of Tech Patent Doctrine Resembles EPO's

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Ceiva v. Amazon crystallizes an informal U.S. heuristic, "a technological solution to a technological problem," rewarding emphasis of a traceable chain from a problem to a solution — a lesson similar to the European Patent Office's "technical character" terminology, says Brandon Theiss at AddyHart.

• 9th Circ. Rule Block Unlikely To Deter FinCEN Cartel Focus

  

  The Ninth Circuit recently blocked the Financial Crimes Enforcement Unit's border cash reporting rule, interpreting it as an impermissible use of an emergency anti-money laundering tool, but regulators are more likely to see the opinion as a road map for building a more defensible rule, say attorneys at Bradley Arant.

• Series

  Being A Sommelier Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Being a sommelier has quietly shaped how I practice law by changing the way I think, communicate and connect with people, and offers a constant reminder that expertise is about making your knowledge useful and accessible to others, says Kara Du at Sheppard.

• MF Doom IP Suit Highlights Hurdles For Trademark Claims

  

  A recent lawsuit involving unauthorized merchandise bearing MF Doom's name and likeness is likely a preview of how infringement and counterfeit cases against online marketplaces will be defended going forward, shedding light on how intellectual property counsel can avoid dismissal of their claims, say Purdue Global Law School professor Scott Mortman and Southwestern Law School student Eden Burkow.

• Card Grading Merger Suit Tests Antitrust In Niche Market

  

  Rasmussen v. Collectors Holdings, a class action pending in California federal court challenging the effects of a trading card grading company merger, reflects the elevation of trading cards from hobby collectibles to niche investment markets susceptible to classic antitrust injury theories, say attorneys at Kean Miller.

• Calif. Drug Ruling Affirms Defect-Centric Liability Framework

  

  The California Supreme Court's decision in Gilead Tenofovir Cases this week rejects a novel duty-to-innovate theory of negligence that could have reshaped product liability exposure well beyond the pharmaceutical industry, instead signaling that negligence claims premised on nondefective products are unlikely to succeed, say attorneys at Dechert.

• CIPA Tech Tracking Suits Highlight Uncertain Legal Ground

  

  Alexandra Samofalova at Spencer Fane discusses the state of California Invasion of Privacy Act website tracking litigation, why credible defendants choose to settle and how the businesses best positioned to face this uncertain legal landscape are the ones treating data practices as a legal compliance matter to address today.

• AI, Prediction Markets Lead Securities Developments In 2026

  

  Securities class actions tied to artificial intelligence and the battle over prediction market regulation both raise novel questions that courts are only beginning to address and that will continue to resonate throughout the second half of the year, say attorneys at Skadden.