Expert Analysis

• Takeaways From High Court's Tribal Health Admin Cost Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's recent determination that the government must reimburse two Native American tribes for administrative healthcare costs will help tribes maintain equal footing with the Indian Health Service when administering programs, and continues a pattern of how the current court aligns on tribal concerns, say attorneys at Lewis Roca.

• Justices' Intent Witness Ruling May Be Useful For Defense Bar

  

  At first glance, the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Diaz v. U.S. decision, allowing experts to testify to the mental state of criminal defendants in federal court, gives prosecutors a new tool, but creative white collar defense counsel may be able to use the same tool to their own advantage, say Jack Sharman and Rachel Bragg at Lightfoot Franklin.

• How To Grow Marketing, Biz Dev Teams In A Tight Market

  

  Faced with fierce competition and rising operating costs, firms are feeling the pressure to build a well-oiled marketing and business development team that supports strategic priorities, but they’ll need to be flexible and creative given a tight talent market, says Ben Curle at Ambition.

• High Court's Expert Ruling May Help Health Fraud Defendants

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Diaz v. U.S. appears to give the government a powerful new tool in calling its own agents as expert witnesses, but it could also benefit defense counsel in criminal healthcare fraud and other white collar criminal cases that arise in complex legal or regulatory environments, say attorneys at Holland & Knight.

• Patent Lessons From 5 Federal Circuit Reversals In June

  

  A look at June cases where the Federal Circuit reversed or vacated decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board or a federal district court highlights a potential path for branded drugmakers to sue generic-drug makers for off-label uses, potential downsides of violating a pretrial order offering testimony, and more, say Denise De Mory and Li Guo at Bunsow De Mory.

• Jarkesy's Impact On SEC Enforcement Will Be Modest

  

  Though the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy decision found that fraud defendants have a constitutional right to a jury trial, the ruling will have muted impact on the agency’s enforcement because it’s already bringing most of its cases in federal court, say Jeremiah Williams and Alyssa Fixsen at Ropes & Gray.

• Series

  Rock Climbing Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Rock climbing requires problem-solving, focus, risk management and resilience, skills that are also invaluable assets in my role as a finance lawyer, says Mei Zhang at Haynes and Boone.

• NY Ruling Offers A Foreclosure Road Map For Lenders

  

  A New York appellate court recently upheld a summary judgment ruling in favor of a commercial lender's foreclosure in U.S. Bank v. 1226 Evergreen Bapaz, illustrating the proofs lenders will need to prosecute a foreclosure action, especially where the plaintiff is an assignee of the originating lender, say attorneys at Sherman Atlas.

• What Chevron's End Means For How Congress Does Business

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo decision, overturning the Chevron doctrine, will have a far-reaching impact across the entire public policy life cycle, beginning with how Congress writes its laws and extending through agency implantation and judicial review, say attorneys at K&L Gates.

• Contract Disputes Recap: Preserving Payment Rights

  

  Stephanie Magnell and Zachary Jacobson at Seyfarth examine three recent decisions that together illustrate the importance of keeping accurate records and adhering to contractual procedures to avoid inadvertently waiving contractual rights to cost reimbursements or nonroutine payments.

• Think Like A Lawyer: Dance The Legal Standard Two-Step

  

  From rookie brief writers to Chief Justice John Roberts, lawyers should master the legal standard two-step — framing the governing standard at the outset, and clarifying why they meet that standard — which has benefits for both the drafter and reader, says Luke Andrews at Poole Huffman.

• Alice Step 2 Trends Show Courts' Extrinsic Evidence Reliance

  

  A look at recent trends in how district courts are applying Step 2 of the Alice framework shows that courts have increasingly relied on extrinsic evidence to help determine whether a claimed invention is "well-understood, routine, and conventional," says Jonathan Tuminaro at Sterne Kessler.

• Opinion

  OFAC Sanctions Deserve To Be Challenged Post-Chevron

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision opens the door to challenges against the Office of Foreign Assets Control's sanctions regime, the unintended consequences of which raise serious questions about the wisdom of what appears to be a scorched-earth approach, says Solomon Shinerock at Lewis Baach.

• How Calif. Ruling Alters Worker Arb. Agreement Enforcement

  

  The California Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Ramirez v. Charter Communications should caution employers that while workers’ arbitration agreements will no longer be deemed unenforceable based on their number of unconscionable provisions, they must still be fair and balanced, says Sander van der Heide at CDF Labor.

• Opinion

  After Jarkesy, IRS Must Course-Correct On Captive Insurance

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy decision has profound implications for other agencies, including the IRS, which must stop ignoring due process and curtailing congressional intent in its policing of captive insurance arrangements, says Peter Dawson at the 831(b) Institute.