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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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, 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
On June 5, 2025, in a unanimous ruling authored by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the U.S. Supreme Court revived the employment discrimination claims of an Ohio woman who contends that she was the victim of “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
On June 6, 2025, in a decision authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned a ruling of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which denied Catholic Charities Bureau an exemption from the state’s...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
In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that Title VII’s protections against discrimination do not require majority group individuals (including white people, men, and heterosexuals) to...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 Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vacated a Sixth Circuit decision imposing an additional evidentiary hurdle on "majority-group" plaintiffs (e.g., Caucasian, male,...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
In a unanimous decision issued June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vacated a Sixth Circuit ruling that imposed a higher evidentiary burden on majority-group plaintiffs in Title...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