Texas Supreme Court Draws Line on Attorney Immunity Privilege
What Health Care Providers and Facilities Should Know About the PREP Act's "Covered Countermeasures"
What No Statutory COVID Immunity Means for Businesses
Blakes Continuity Podcast: Life Sciences: Liability and Immunity During COVID-19
More Emerging Litigation Claims and Demands from COVID-19
On February 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that an Alabama rule requiring claimants to first exhaust the state administrative appeals process before bringing due process claims over delays in their...more
On July 1, 2024, the last day of the 2023-2024 term, the Supreme Court of the United States issued four decisions: Trump v. United States, No. 23-939: This case concerns the scope of former President Donald J. Trump’s...more
On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court released its opinion in Trump v. United States. The six-Justice majority concluded that the President of the United States is entitled to at least a presumption of immunity from...more
On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Trump v. United States, No. 23-939, holding that former Presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for official acts that arise within their “conclusive and...more
A bipartisan coalition of 18 state attorneys general (AGs) led by Connecticut AG William Tong has signed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule its 1972 Flood v. Kuhn decision and revoke the immunity from...more
In the space of a three-page per curiam opinion, Gonzalez v. Google went from blockbuster to nothingburger. The first (and, therefore, the biggest) Section 230 case to be considered on the merits by the U.S. Supreme Court,...more
The Justice Department’s invited amicus curiae brief in Blassingame v. Trump1 exposes another anomaly in treating the President’s scope of employment as a question of state tort law for purposes of the Westfall Act. In...more
In what could be a seminal case of the Internet age, the U.S. Supreme Court this week heard arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, its first case concerning the hotly debated Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act....more
This past week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google. The petitioners are a family that unsuccessfully sued Google for aiding and abetting terrorism when their 23-year old daughter was tragically...more
During oral argument in Turkiye Halk Bankasi A.S. v. United States, the Court raised several questions about whether a state-owned entity, Halkbank, was immune from U.S. criminal prosecution under the common law. The...more
Last week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari for two cases challenging Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The result of the Supreme Court’s review has the potential to change how big tech and social media...more
On October 3, 2022, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, No. 21-1333, to address the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act....more
Since the passage of Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act (“CDA”), the majority of federal circuits have interpreted the CDA to establish broad federal immunity to causes of action that would treat service providers...more
The US Supreme Court granted certification on February 3 to review the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s decision in In re PennEast Pipeline Co. in order to resolve an important question: Does the Natural Gas Act...more
While this was a big week for the United States Supreme Court with the confirmation of Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Justice Clarence Thomas’ written statement following the Court’s October 12, 2020, decision in...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued three decisions this morning: Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, No. 17-204: Apple’s App Store is the only place iPhone users may lawfully buy apps. Although Apple sells the apps...more
No longer entitled to near absolute immunity, MDBs may be prompted to modify their charters, lending practices, and accountability mechanisms. Key Points: ..The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit’s ruling, holding...more
On February 27, 2019, the Supreme Court held in Jam v. International Finance Corporation that international organizations may be subject to suit for their commercial activities. In order to appreciate the significance of this...more
On 27 February 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that International Organisations do not have absolute immunity under the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 (IOIA). This blog discusses...more
In the global economy, companies increasingly interact with “international organizations,” or institutions created by treaty or other intergovernmental agreement. These include organizations that engage in economic and...more
On February 27, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a ruling of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and held that international organizations, such as the World Bank, while being protected by the...more
On February 27, 2019, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Jam v. International Finance Corp., No. 17-1011, holding that the International Organizations Immunities Act of 1945 grants international organizations the...more
Officers are immune from liability in lawsuits alleging use of deadly force against fleeing suspects unless it is “beyond debate” that a shooting was unjustified and clearly unreasonable, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. The...more
In a closely followed decision with significant consequences for state licensing boards and their members, the Supreme Court in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, 135 S. Ct. 1101...more
In North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. F.T.C., No. 13-534 (2015), the United States Supreme Court ruled last week that the North Carolina Dental Board, which is comprised mainly of practicing dentists, was not...more