SCOTUS

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court confirmed that independent agency officials who exercise executive power serve at the President’s pleasure and may be removed without cause.  In doing so, the Supreme Court overruled a 91-year-old case restricting the President’s right to remove such officials and opened the door for President Trump to remove other executive agency officials as he wishes.    … Continue Reading

As online shopping and rapid delivery services continue to reshape the economy, employers increasingly rely on individuals who transport goods for their “last mile,” from warehouses and distribution centers to retail locations and consumers. A recent Supreme Court decision may make it more difficult for employers who operate in the “last mile” arena to enforce arbitration agreements against those drivers.… Continue Reading

Consistent with the Trump Administration’s longstanding stance on “gender ideology,” several recent legal developments have curtailed or sought to limit LGBTQ rights.  Collectively, these actions reflect a broader trend of renewed efforts to limit LGBTQ protections at the federal and state levels.  Despite these efforts, sexual orientation and gender identity remain protected characteristics under federal and many state and local antidiscrimination laws.… Continue Reading

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 discrimination). Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, 605 U.S. ___ (2025).This ruling is expected to make it easier for reverse discrimination claimants to bring their claims in federal court.… Continue Reading

On December 5, 2023, the Supreme Court of the United States in Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer, declined to substantively address a question businesses across the country have been eager to resolve: That is, whether a “tester” plaintiff has standing to sue a public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), despite having no intention of ever visiting the business.… Continue Reading

In this podcast episode, we discuss the recent US Supreme Court ruling in the Students for Fair Admissions Inc.’s lawsuits against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina, which challenged the constitutionality of their race conscious admission policies. We’ll consider the potential implications across multiple settings, from university admissions policies, to workplace and other DEI programs.… Continue Reading

The Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (collectively SFFA), in a 6-3 majority opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, held that the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina (UNC) violate federal law.… Continue Reading

Last week, amid its headline-generating decisions on affirmative action, religious accommodations in the workplace, and LGBTQ rights, the Supreme Court of the United States also issued its decision in Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co., 600 U.S. _____ (2023) (slip op.), a decision which has the potential to expand a state’s jurisdiction over out-of-state corporations registered to do business there. … Continue Reading