Alison Frankel

Employer alert: Your arbitration clause is going to be tested at SCOTUS

August 23, 2016

(Reuters) – Something dramatic has happened in the world of employment law this summer, and sooner than later, it’s going to require the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Criminal defense bar sides with business lobby in False Claims Act case at SCOTUS

August 17, 2016

(Reuters) – It’s easy to understand why groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Tort Reform Association and the Coalition for Government Procurement are siding with State Farm in one of the most colorful business cases the U.S. Supreme Court will hear in its upcoming term. But the organized criminal defense bar?

Why do securities class actions drag on once SCOTUS gets involved?

July 21, 2016

(Reuters) – When Connecticut State Treasurer Denise Nappier announced Wednesday that the state retirement fund, as the lead plaintiff in a securities class action against the biotech company Amgen, had settled the case for $95 million, I was startled to realize the litigation was still going on.

Federal courts are quietly allowing gun control – and SCOTUS is letting them

June 13, 2016

(Reuters) – Later this week, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are scheduled to consider a petition by Connecticut gun rights advocates who want the court to strike down the state’s restrictions on military-style semiautomatic weapons – the type of firearm used in this weekend’s horrific mass shooting at a nightclub in Florida and in the 2012 massacre of first graders at Sandy Hook elementary school.

The rise and (apparent) decline of sealed petitions at the Supreme Court

May 27, 2016

(Reuters) – An item at Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog caught my eye Thursday. Bashman linked to an article from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, reporting that the U.S. Supreme Court will allow Milwaukee District Attorney John Chisholm and two other Wisconsin prosecutors to file a certiorari petition under seal, with only a redacted version available to the public.

Redskins throw serious shade at The Slants’ counsel in new cert petition

April 26, 2016

(Reuters) –

On Monday, the National Football League’s Washington Redskins asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the cancellation of several of the team’s long-held trademarks for violating the Lanham Act’s non-disparagement clause. One of the team’s arguments is that if the justices plan to consider the constitutionality of the Lanham Act’s non-disparagement provision, they need to hear from the team’s lawyers, who are “best positioned to ensure that this court enjoys the full benefits of the adversarial process.”

In NFL concussion case, 3rd Circuit reopens door for personal injury class actions

April 19, 2016

(Reuters) – Can the National Football League tackle 19-year-old U.S. Supreme Court precedent?

Meet the Thai math prof whose copyright case is headed for SCOTUS – again

April 11, 2016

(Reuters) – In the eight years since the publisher John Wiley & Sons first sued him for copyright infringement, almost all of the particulars of Supap Kirtsaeng’s life have changed. Back then, he was an unmarried graduate student in mathematics at the University of Southern California with a side business reselling Asian-produced versions of American textbooks. Today, after nearly a decade of litigation setbacks and advances, Kirtsaeng is back in Thailand. His textbook business is shuttered and he and his old girlfriend broke up, but he found a job as a professor, married a colleague and is finally feeling financially secure.

Immigration case at SCOTUS could turn on wonky administrative law issue

April 5, 2016

(Reuters) – The future of four million undocumented immigrants in the U.S. rests on the subtle and surprisingly ill-defined distinction between a policy statement and a substantive rule.

Philip Morris to SCOTUS: Don’t revisit corporate money in judicial elections

March 28, 2016

(Reuters) – It now costs, on average, at least $1 million to run a successful campaign for a seat on the state-court bench in Illinois, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan and Ohio, according to an October 2015 report: “Bankrolling the Bench,” by Justice at Stake, the Brennan Center and the National Institute on Money in State Politics. In the two most expensive states for judicial campaigns, Michigan and Illinois, prospective judges spent more than $3 million, on average, in the most recent elections.