On April 17, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Cunningham v. Cornell University, No. 23-1007, holding that a plaintiff may state a prohibited-transaction claim in violation of ERISA § 406(a) without referencing the exemptions...more
As general Election Day approaches, businesses, corporate executives and employees may take opportunities to become involved in the administrative and political processes central to determining the outcomes of local, state...more
On June 13, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, No. 23-235, together with Danco Laboratories, L.L.C. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, No. 23-236,...more
On March 4, 2024, the Supreme Court decided Trump v. Anderson, No. 23-719, holding that States may enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against federal officeholders or candidates only to the...more
As higher education institutions, state and local governments, private employers and federal contractors grapple with understanding the impacts of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. President...more
7/24/2023
/ Affirmative Action ,
Civil Rights Act ,
College Admissions ,
Colleges ,
Diversity ,
Educational Institutions ,
Equal Protection ,
Fourteenth Amendment ,
SCOTUS ,
Students for Fair Admissions v Harvard College ,
Students for Fair Admissions v University of North Carolina ,
Title VI ,
Title VII ,
Universities
On May 25, 2023, the Supreme Court decided Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, No. 22-166, holding that, upon seizure of their real property for unpaid property taxes, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S....more
On January 30, 2023, President Biden announced the Administration’s plan to extend the current declarations of the COVID-19 national emergency and public health emergency (PHE) through May 11, 2023, and end both emergencies...more
2/7/2023
/ Biden Administration ,
COBRA ,
Coronavirus/COVID-19 ,
Department of Labor (DOL) ,
Employee Benefits ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Employer Group Health Plans ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Health and Welfare Plans ,
IRS ,
Public Health Emergency ,
Time Extensions ,
U.S. Treasury
On June 21, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Marietta Memorial Hospital Employee Health Benefit Plan v. DaVita Inc., No. 20-1641, holding that a group health plan that uniformly provides limited benefits for outpatient...more
On April 27, 2022, the Sixth Circuit decided Hawkins v. Cintas Corporation, No. 21-3156, holding that claims for breach of fiduciary duty under § 502(a)(2) of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),...more
On February 24, 2022, the Supreme Court decided Unicolors, Inc. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz, L.P., No. 20-915, holding that an inadvertent mistake of law in a copyright registration applicant’s application does not render the...more
On January 20, 2022, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida enforced a mandatory arbitration and class action-waiver provision (Arbitration Provision) in an ERISA-governed defined contribution...more
On September 10, 2021, the Seventh Circuit decided Smith v. Board of Directors of Triad Manufacturing Inc., No. 20-2708, holding that benefit plans may require claimants to arbitrate claims under the Employee Retirement...more
On June 1, 2021, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Cooley, No. 19-1414, holding that Indian tribe police officers retain authority to search and temporarily detain suspected non-Indian criminals on public...more
On March 8, 2021, the Supreme Court decided Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, No. 19-968, holding that plaintiffs have standing to sue for past injuries fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, even if they seek only nominal...more
On June 8, 2020, the Supreme Court decided Lomax v. Ortiz-Marquez, No. 18-8369, holding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PLRA) prevents a prisoner who has had at least three lawsuits dismissed because they were...more
6/10/2020
/ Appeals ,
Dismissal With Prejudice ,
Dismissals ,
Failure To State A Claim ,
FRCP 41 ,
Frivolous Lawsuits ,
In Forma Pauperis ,
Lomax v Ortiz-Marquez ,
PLRA ,
Prison Litigation Reform Act ,
Prisoners ,
Reaffirmation ,
SCOTUS
On May 6, 2020, the Seventh Circuit decided Acheron Medical Supply, LLC v. Cook Medical Inc., Nos. 19-2315 and 19-2410. The underlying dispute occurred long before COVID-19, but two aspects of the Court’s decision could...more
As described in our May 1 blog post, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Employee Benefits Security Administration, the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of the Treasury...more
On May 7, 2020, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Sineneng-Smith, No. 19-67, holding that, absent extraordinary circumstances, courts must adhere to the principle of party presentation and decide only those questions...more
The COVID-19 pandemic has millions of Americans under orders to stay home and/or restrict their travel and other activities. In times of emergency, state and municipal authorities have vast powers to close institutions and...more
All levels of government are issuing declarations, orders, and guidance directing individuals and businesses to socially distance, isolate, and quarantine under certain circumstances. Some overlap. Others conflict. With so...more
On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v. Jander, No. 18-1165, remanding the case to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to decide whether to address the views of...more
1/15/2020
/ Appeals ,
Breach of Duty ,
Corporate Officers ,
Dismissals ,
Duty of Prudence ,
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) ,
Employee Stock Purchase Plans ,
ESOP ,
Failure To Disclose ,
Fiduciary Duty ,
FIfth Third Bancorp v Dudenhoeffer ,
Fraud ,
Inflated Projections ,
Insider Information ,
Misrepresentation ,
Plan Participants ,
Pleading Standards ,
Popular ,
Remand ,
Retirement Plans Committee of IBM v Jander ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Securities Violations ,
Vacated
On May 13, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, No. 17-1299, holding that a private party may not sue a non-consenting state in another state’s courts.
In Nevada v. Hall, 440 U.S. 410...more
5/14/2019
/ Article III ,
Constitutional Challenges ,
Franchise Tax Board of California v Hyatt ,
Judgment Creditors ,
Jury Verdicts ,
NV Supreme Court ,
Precedential Opinion ,
Reversal ,
SCOTUS ,
Sovereign Immunity ,
Stare Decisis ,
States Rights ,
Without Consent
On April 1, 2019, the Supreme Court decided Biestek v. Berryhill, No. 17-1184, holding that a Social Security Administration (SSA) vocational expert’s opinion may constitute “substantial evidence” supporting an administrative...more
4/2/2019
/ Administrative Hearings ,
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ,
Appeals ,
Biestek v Berryhill ,
Denial of Benefits ,
Disability Benefits ,
Dissenting Opinions ,
Failure To Disclose ,
Reaffirmation ,
SCOTUS ,
Social Security Benefits ,
Substantial Evidence ,
Substantial Evidence Standard ,
Vocational Experts
On April 24, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, No. 16-499, holding that foreign corporations may not be defendants in suits brought under the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), 28 U.S.C. § 1350....more
On March 20, 2018, the Supreme Court decided Cyan, Inc. v. Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, No. 15-1439, unanimously holding that the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA) does not remove state...more