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
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 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
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
In Williams v. Reed, 145 S. Ct. 465 (2025), the United States Supreme Court reversed an Alabama Supreme Court decision affirming the dismissal of plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claims for lack of jurisdiction, based on the...more