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
The New Jersey Appellate Division recently issued an important decision clarifying how claims brought under the Law Against Discrimination (LAD) interact with agency proceedings in employment matters. Specifically, it made...more
On July 8, the US Supreme Court allowed President Trump’s executive order (EO) permitting Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)-related planning efforts for the Trump Administration’s restructuring of the federal...more
The reports of the death of Section 10 of the FAA may have been greatly exaggerated. Thursday, a majority of the Eleventh Circuit held in Nalco Co. LLC v. Bonday that an arbitration award was subject to vacatur under Section...more
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 27, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case of Trump v. CASA, Inc. that limited the power of federal district courts to issue universal injunctions....more
Case: Stenson Tamaddon LLC v. IRS, No. CV-24-01123-PHX-SPL, 2025 WL 1725942 (D. Ariz. June 20, 2025) On June 20, 2025, the US District Court for the District of Arizona denied a motion for summary judgment that was filed...more
On June 27, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision on review of three federal court orders that have blocked—on a nationwide basis—implementation of President Trump’s executive order restricting so-called “birthright...more
On June 26, 2025, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court (PRSC) issued an opinion in Méndez Ruiz v. Techno Plastics Industries, Inc., 216 D.P.R. ____, 2025 TSPR 68 (2025), determining whether the defendant had “just cause” under...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals’ decisions reviewing National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”) orders continue to roll in. Most recently, on June 27, 2025, the D.C. Circuit upheld an NLRB ruling that George Washington University...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
Despite the National Labor Relations Board’s (“NLRB” or “Board”) continuing lack of quorum, federal courts of appeal have been busy reviewing its decisions....more
In a decision issued on June 27, 2025, Trump v. CASA, Inc. (a 6-3 ruling), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal District Courts lack authority to grant universal injunctions. In CASA, the United States District Courts for...more
On June 24, 2025, the Oregon Supreme Court held in Crosbie v. Asante that a trial court order of the scope of issues to be retried after reversal and remand cannot be immediately appealed....more
In a 6-3 opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court partially stayed the nationwide injunctions issued by three district courts against enforcement of President Donald Trump’s executive order (EO) fundamentally changing birthright...more
Proskauer is proud to share a significant victory in our long-standing advocacy for the rights of blind and visually impaired pedestrians in Chicago. On May 29, 2025, the Honorable Judge LaShonda A. Hunt of the U.S. District...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
A recent Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel enforced part and declined to enforce another part of an NLRB ruling that an employer violated the National Labor Relations Act by telling employees that the union’s...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
Last week in Troy Grove v. NLRB, No. 23-1164 (D.C. Cir., June 13, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered a sharp rebuke to the National Labor Relations Board, finding “irrational” the Board’s...more
While the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB” or the “Board”) does not have a quorum, a pair of June 13, 2025 decisions by federal courts of appeal highlight key labor law issues under the National Labor Relations Act...more
On June 13, 2025, the D.C. Circuit refused to enforce an “irrational” Board order finding an employer violated its duty to bargain by declaring impasse. By declaring impasse, the employer sought to implement its last, best,...more
On June 5, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, significantly impacting how majority-group discrimination claims are evaluated under Title VII of the...more
On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, No. 24-249, holding that discrimination claims brought under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of...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