Legal Implications of the Supreme Court's Ruling on Universal Injunctions
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 65 -The Power of Interpretation: Constitutional Meaning in the Modern World
Federal Court Strikes Down FDA Rule on LDTs - Thought Leaders in Health Law®
Episode 18 | Unpacking the Packing: A Perspective on the Efforts to Expand the Supreme Court
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida that a retired employee who could no longer hold or seek to hold her job could not sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act...more
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, addressing the scope of protections available to retired workers under Title I of the Americans with...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that courts may not impose heightened evidentiary requirements on Title VII plaintiffs simply because...more
On June 20, 2025, in Stanley v. City of Sanford, the United States Supreme Court concluded that a retiree who could no longer work because of a disability is not a “qualified individual” entitled to protection under Title I...more
On June 5, 2025—in the midst of heightened scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives triggered by executive orders issued by President Trump as well as various federal agency guidance—the Supreme Court...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous Supreme Court eliminated the requirement for a higher evidentiary standard for majority plaintiffs (white, male, heterosexual, etc.) who claim discrimination under Title VII (also known as reverse...more
A recent Supreme Court decision clarified that discrimination claims brought by members of majority groups in so-called “reverse discrimination” cases cannot be subject to a heightened evidentiary burden. In Ames v. Ohio...more
In Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services, the Supreme Court eliminated the higher standard majority-group plaintiffs had to meet in Title VII discrimination cases. Traditionally, a Title VII plaintiff must show they are a...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently weighed in on the contentious issue of reverse discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars disparate treatment of employees on the basis of race, color, religion,...more
On May 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a significant ruling in State of Texas v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (No. 2:24-cv-00173), declaring that the EEOC’s 2024 Guidance...more
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas recently issued a ruling vacating the “gender-identity related portions” of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) 2024 Guidance interpreting Title...more
DECISION ALERT: AMES V. OHIO DEP’T OF YOUTH SVCS. INTRODUCTION: On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision holding that so-called “reverse discrimination” claims—discrimination claims...more
On June 5, 2025, a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court invalidated how some courts evaluated so-called “reverse discrimination” cases. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that a majority-group plaintiff need not show “background...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services unanimously struck down the Sixth Circuit’s “background circumstances” rule, which had required majority-group plaintiffs to meet a heightened...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, rejecting a longstanding rule applied by the Sixth Circuit and other circuit courts that imposed a...more
On June 5, 2025, the Supreme Court lowered the bar for majority-group plaintiffs – ruling they are not required to meet a higher standard to bring reverse discrimination claims. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v....more
On June 5th the U.S. Supreme Court held that majority-group plaintiffs do not have to show special “background circumstances” to support a Title VII discrimination claim. ...more
As we previously reported, in April 2024 the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued its final regulations implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). Among other things, the rule stated that...more
On May 21, 2025, Judge David C. Joseph of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a ruling vacating the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s final rule under the 2022 Pregnant Workers...more
Last week, a federal district court in Texas granted summary judgment to the State of Texas in a lawsuit challenging portions of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s workplace harassment guidance dealing with...more
A federal appeals court has invalidated the FCC’s attempt to require broadcasters to file annual reports disclosing the race, ethnicity, and gender of their employees....more
The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, __ U.S. __ (2024), overturning the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, drastically reshapes administrative law....more