The Atlantic Legal Foundation long has been an advocate for ensuring that only reliable expert opinions are considered by courts and/or juries during any phase of litigation. In support of a certiorari petition filed by NVIDIA Corporation in a securities fraud suit governed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), ALF has filed an […]
State and local governments have filed dozens of damages suits in state courts around the United States collectively seeking billions of dollars from major oil and gas producers for the alleged local effects of global warming and climate change. The potentially disastrous national and international ramifications of allowing these proliferating suits to proceed are enormously
On November 13, 2023, the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States issued a self-enforcing Code of Conduct applicable to themselves. The Code of Conduct section titled Disqualification includes the following statement: “Neither the filing of a brief amicus curiae nor the participation ofcounsel for amicus curiae requires a Justice’s disqualification” This statement
Amicus Briefs Do Not Require Disqualification Of Supreme Court Justices Read More »
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411, a First Amendment freedom of speech case brought by the States of Missouri and Louisiana and several individual social media users, including public health experts. They seek to enjoin White House, Surgeon General, Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and other
ALF Urges Supreme Court To Let Scientific Debate Flourish Read More »
As a Big Law alumnus who writes and reads a lot of amicus briefs, I’m neither impressed nor surprised by a newly published statistical analysis, Ideological Leanings in Likely Pro Bono BigLaw Amicus Briefs in the United States Supreme Court, Harv. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y Per Curiam (Winter 2024). The analysis, conducted by Prof. Derek
Amicus Brief-Based Analysis of Big Law Firms’ Ideological Leanings Proves Little Read More »
Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) mandates that arbitration agreements “shall be valid, irrevocable, and enforceable.” 9 U.S.C § 2. Section 1 of the FAA, however, exempts “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.” 9 U.S.C § 1. The Supreme Court
ALF Argues That Arbitration Act’s “Transportation Worker” Exemption Is Narrow Read More »
The Supreme Court repeatedly has recognized that the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq., embodies a strong federal policy requiring judicial enforcement of private-party agreements to resolve disputes through binding arbitration, which usually is speedier, more efficient, and less expensive than litigation. To facilitate these benefits, arbitration agreements often contain a “delegation clause”
ALF Urges Supreme Court To Enforce Arbitrator Delegation Clause Read More »
Where can a company that offers its products nationwide—either directly through its own interactive website, or indirectly through a third-party online platform such as Amazon—be sued? This is the important, recurring, Internet-age, personal jurisdiction question that the petitioners in Photoplaza, Inc. v. Herbal Brands, Inc., No. 23-504, are asking the Supreme Court to decide. The certiorari
ALF Amicus Brief Urges Supreme Court To Decide Where Online Sellers Can Be Sued Read More »
The Atlantic Legal Foundation and the DRI Center for Law and Public Policy have filed an amicus brief in Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn, No. 23-365, urging the Supreme Court to address the question of whether personal injury claims can be transformed in treble-damages civil RICO suits. Sarah Spencer of Christensen & Jensen and I co-authored
ALF & DRI Urge Supreme Court To Limit Civil RICO’s Scope Read More »
In SEC v. Jarkesy, No. 22-859, the Supreme Court has agreed to review a Fifth Circuit opinion holding that Securities and Exchange Commission “in-house” civil administrative enforcement proceedings are unconstitutional on three grounds: (i) they deprive respondents (i.e., defendants) of their Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury; (ii) Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the
ALF Argues That SEC In-House Enforcement Proceedings Deprive Defendants of Due Process Read More »
