In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
5 Key Takeaways | ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference
Recent Trends in Article III Standing - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Episode 18 | Unpacking the Packing: A Perspective on the Efforts to Expand the Supreme Court
AGG Talks: Background Screening - A Refresher on Responding to Consumer File Requests under Section 609 of the FCRA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Podcast: Texas v. United States of America
Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue
Labcorp v. Davis brought a pivotal question to the fore: Can a court certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) that includes uninjured members? The case had the potential to significantly affect forum...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court was set to rule in Labcorp v. Davis, which sought to resolve division among federal circuit courts regarding the certification of a damages class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of...more
This development reinforces the importance of early case assessment and a tailored class certification defense strategy. Lower courts may continue to diverge on this issue, creating inconsistent outcomes depending on...more
On April 29, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Labcorp v. Davis, in which it considered the question of whether Article III standing must be determined for all members of the class, including uninjured members,...more
In a closely watched case with major implications for class action litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped a long-simmering legal question: Can a class be certified if it includes members who suffered no injury? On...more
In Labcorp v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court was poised to decide if a federal court can certify a class that includes members who lack any Article III injury. But as we discussed last month, the oral argument suggested that...more
On December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, declined to substantively address a question businesses across the country have been eager to resolve: That is, whether a “tester”...more
Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), courts have grappled with what constitutes a sufficient injury in fact to satisfy Article III standing requirements. Predominant Issues...more
On February 2, 2021, Judge Kevin McNulty of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey declined to reconsider his dismissal of a RICO claim in a putative class action against BMW and automotive part supplier...more
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision last Tuesday affirmed the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Patchak v. Zinke, holding that Congress through the Gun Lake Act, which reaffirms...more
On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Patchak v. Zinke, No. 16-498. No opinion commanded a majority of the Court, but six justices concluded that the plaintiff’s lawsuit under the Indian...more