 //sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=126591700&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35940262&lctg=64158878abe57c7b7c0f362f&stpe=pixel” width=”2″ height=”6″ border=”0″ /> |
//sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=126591701&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35940262&lctg=64158878abe57c7b7c0f362f&stpe=pixel” width=”2″ height=”6″ border=”0″ /> |
//sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=126591702&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35940262&lctg=64158878abe57c7b7c0f362f&stpe=pixel” width=”2″ height=”6″ border=”0″ /> |
//sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=126591703&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35940262&lctg=64158878abe57c7b7c0f362f&stpe=pixel” width=”2″ height=”6″ border=”0″ /> |
//sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=126591704&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35940262&lctg=64158878abe57c7b7c0f362f&stpe=pixel” width=”2″ height=”6″ border=”0″ /> |
|
|
|
| //sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=874768&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35940262&lctg=64158878abe57c7b7c0f362f&stpe=static” border=”0″ style=”max-height:12px;” /> |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Law firms are capitalizing on client uncertainty sparked by a flurry of new U.S. Supreme Court rulings that favored opponents of federal agency powers, even as lawyers themselves differ on the decisions’ immediate and long-term effects, writes Mike Scarcella.
Among several rulings tamping down on agency power this term, the court overturned a 1984 precedent that established an important principle in administrative law known as “Chevron deference,” which called on courts to give deference to government agency interpretations of federal law.
Within hours of the decisions, major U.S. law firms began sending out client-focused emails and webinar invitations to discuss the cases and showcase their expertise — a marketing strategy that often follows major legal developments. Law firms known for challenging federal regulations stand to be particularly busy, but lawyers said it will take time for the new landscape to take shape.
Helgi Walker, who co-leads the administrative and regulatory law practice at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, predicted the rulings would be “a shot in the arm to administrative law challenges.” Alston & Bird’s Daniel Jarcho, who also handles litigation involving federal regulators, said he received a “flood of inquiries” from current and potential clients looking to understand the rulings.
Not everyone expects a sudden crush of new case filings, however. Some attorneys said immediate client inquiries focused on how the Supreme Court’s orders apply to cases already in the courts and not whether to bring new ones.
For more on the cases that are getting reconsideration right away, read this from our colleague Tom Hals.
|
|
|
| //sli.reutersmedia.net/imp?s=874763&li=&e=gjjtuyu768@gmail.com&p=35940262&lctg=64158878abe57c7b7c0f362f&stpe=static” border=”0″ style=”max-height:12px;” /> |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
- A conservative group sued Northwestern University, claiming its law school discriminates against white men in faculty hiring and in the selection of articles that appear in its flagship law review. The organization, called Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences, is represented in its lawsuit by prominent conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell and by America First Legal, which is headed by former Donald Trump advisor Steven Miller.
- Rudy Giuliani lost his New York law license after a state appeals court found he had lied in arguing that the 2020 presidential election was stolen from his client, former U.S. President Donald Trump. The court found that Giuliani “baselessly attacked and undermined the integrity of this country’s electoral process” and “actively contributed to the national strife that has followed the 2020 presidential election, for which he is entirely unrepentant.”
- U.S. District Judge William Martini in Newark ruled that a former senior Apple lawyer who avoided prison time after pleading guilty to insider trading must pay a $1.15 million fine in a related SEC civil case. The judge said that while Gene Levoff “was not living excessively, his violations were nonetheless especially egregious” given the lawyer’s former role enforcing Apple’s insider trading policies.
- The 2nd Circuit revived an antitrust lawsuit accusing 10 large banks of overcharging investors on corporate bonds, saying the trial judge should have recused because his wife owned stock in one of the banks. The appeals court said that while U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman “almost certainly unknowingly” had a conflict of interest, his partiality in dismissing the case could reasonably be questioned because his wife’s ownership of Bank of America stock created an “appearance of impropriety.”
|
That’s how much some New York Progressive auto insurance policy holders will receive if a judge approves the company’s proposed $48 million settlement in a class action lawsuit accusing the insurer of systematically undervaluing the claims of New York drivers whose vehicles were wrecked. If it moves ahead, the deal would resolve allegations Progressive used third-party software that underestimated what policyholders’ vehicles could have been sold for before they became total losses.
|
Pfizer on Monday urged the 2nd Circuit not to revisit its decision to bar an anti-affirmative action group’s challenge to the pharma company’s diversity fellowship because the group failed to name people who had allegedly been harmed. Alison Frankel covers the latest wrinkle on a threshold question about associational standing that could end up at the Supreme Court.
|
“The consumers had the opportunity to present their evidence, and they failed to do so.“
|
—7th Circuit Judge Thomas Kirsch, who wrote the panel opinion reversing a lower court’s decision that would have required Samsung Electronics to pay millions of dollars in arbitration fees to respond to thousands of consumer privacy claims. In the case, which could help define the scope of consumer mass arbitration, the appeals court said the plaintiffs had not shown they had valid arbitration agreements. The appeal came after the plaintiffs sued Samsung in 2022, seeking an order compelling the device maker to arbitrate claims that it was violating an Illinois law that curbs the collection and use of personal biometric information such as facial scans and fingerprints.
|
|
|
- U.S. District Judge Ada Brown in Dallas said she wants to issue her ruling by today on whether to preliminarily block the FTC’s noncompete ban. Brown is presiding over a lawsuit lodged by tax services firm Ryan LLC. Business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a Pennsylvania tree trimming company also filed lawsuits challenging the new FTC rule.
- The judge overseeing the criminal case against OneTaste founder Nicole Daedone and head of sales Rachel Cherwitz is holding a hearing in Brooklyn federal court after Daedone and Cherwitz alleged that a member of the FBI instructed a key witness to delete emails. Daedone and Cherwitz were charged in June with orchestrating a forced labor conspiracy at the sexuality-focused wellness company, which included instructing their members to perform sexual acts for “freedom and enlightenment.” They have pleaded not guilty. The company itself, which is not a defendant, has said it cooperated with the investigation.
|
Court calendars are subject to last-minute docket changes.
|
- The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider whether a Texas law that requires pornographic websites to verify the age of individual users in an effort to restrict access to minors violates constitutional free speech protections. The high court rejected several other cases, including a teen sex abuse victim’s bid to revive a lawsuit against Snapchat and a challenge to an Illinois assault weapons ban.
- Roche sued Stanford University and medical technology startup Foresight Diagnostics, claiming Foresight misused its genetic-sequencing trade secrets to develop competing cancer-detection products. Roche said in the complaint that two Stanford professors, whose technology Roche acquired in 2015, secretly created Foresight while working as Roche consultants and stole its technology to use in their new business.
- Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment’s former chief executive declined to testify about his company’s failure to pay employees before filing for bankruptcy, saying he was concerned about potential criminal liability, his attorneys said at a court hearing. After the company entered bankruptcy this week, a group of lenders led by private investment firm HPS Investment accused ex-CEO William Rouhana of improperly firing the company’s board, failing to make payroll for the company’s 1,000 employees, and causing employees to lose access to their healthcare benefits.
- Viatris unit Mylan is no longer a subject of the DOJ’s antitrust investigation into alleged price fixing in the generic drug industry, Viatris said without mentioning why Mylan was dropped from the probe. Mylan and several major drugmakers such as Israel’s Teva and India’s Sun Phara have been under the DOJ’s scanner for more than eight years over alleged anticompetitive business practices in fixing prices of certain generic drugs.
|
|
|
The DOJ recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking related to the transfer of marijuana from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act to schedule III, consistent with a prior recommendation provided by HHS. The basis for rescheduling marijuana is based on the view that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use and lower propensity for abuse potential and physical or psychological dependence, write Jean Smith-Gonnell and Michael Lafleur of Troutman Pepper. While many believe rescheduling is a positive step forward for marijuana, the recreational marijuana markets may see only one true benefit from rescheduling.
|
|
|
|
