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
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 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 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 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 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 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
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
On January 22, 2018, the Supreme Court decided National Association of Manufacturers v. Department of Defense, No. 16-299, in which it held that the federal courts of appeal do not have direct and exclusive jurisdiction under...more
On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Sessions v. Morales-Santana, No. 15-1191, in which it held that an exception to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., that provides a benefit to children of...more
On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Sandoz, Inc. v. Amgen, Inc., Nos. 15-1039, 15-1195, in which it held that (a) a manufacturer of a licensed biological product cannot obtain federal injunctive relief to enforce 42...more
6/13/2017
/ Amgen ,
Biosimilars ,
BPCIA ,
Commercial Marketing ,
Declaratory Judgments ,
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ,
Patent Infringement ,
Patent Litigation ,
Patents ,
Pharmaceutical Patents ,
Popular ,
Sandoz ,
Sandoz v Amgen ,
SCOTUS
On June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton, No. 16-74, holding that an employee benefit plan that is maintained by an organization that is controlled by or associated with a church...more
On June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court decided North Carolina v. Covington, No. 16-1023, vacating the remedial relief order that the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina entered in late 2016 after...more
On June 5, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, Inc., No. 16-605, holding that a litigant who wishes to seek relief different from that sought by a party with standing in a lawsuit may not...more
On May 1, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., No. 15-423, holding that a federal court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit against a foreign sovereign...more
On April 25, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Lewis v. Clarke, No. 15-1500, holding that an Indian tribe’s sovereign immunity does not bar a suit against a tribe official or employee, in their individual capacity, for acts he...more
On April 26, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Heffernan v. City of Paterson, No. 14-1280, holding government employees who are demoted because their employer believes they are engaging in constitutionally protected political...more
On April 20, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, No. 14-232, holding that a redistricting plan is not unconstitutional where the maximum population deviation between the...more