Injunctions for All – Speaking of Litigation Podcast
The Labor Law Insider: NLRB Adopts Pro-Labor Remedies for Alleged Unfair Labor Practices, Part III
#WorkforceWednesday: New COVID-19 Testing Guidance, NLRB Increases Use of Injunctive Relief, D.C. Amends Near-Universal Ban on Non-Competes - Employment Law This Week®
The Labor Law Insider: NLRB Adopts Pro-Labor Remedies for Alleged Unfair Labor Practices, Part II
The Labor Law Insider: NLRB Adopts Pro-Labor Remedies for Alleged Unfair Labor Practices
JONES DAY TALKS®: Consumer Protection Enforcement Changes Likely After SCOTUS AMG Decision
Key Takeaways from the AMG Capital Management v. FTC Decision
#WorkforceWednesday: New AB5 Exemptions, EEOC COVID-19 Updates, Joint-Employer Rule Partially Struck Down - Employment Law This Week®
The United States Supreme Court issued a decision that curtailed the practice of “universal” or “nationwide” injunctions and may have a significant impact for individuals and organizations that seek redress from the courts,...more
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. that federal courts lack the authority to issue universal injunctions under the Judiciary Act of 1789. In so ruling, the Court granted the...more
Federal grantees facing the termination of their grants by the new administration have challenged those terminations by filing suits under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in federal district courts. In about a half a...more
On January 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s motion to lift the nationwide injunction against enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) in Texas Top Cop Shop v. McHenry (formerly, Texas Top...more
On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided two cases addressing employers’ religious freedoms in very different contexts: one concerning whether religious school teachers could challenge adverse employment...more
On July 8, 2020, in the consolidated cases of Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania et al. and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Pennsylvania et al., the U.S. Supreme...more
On Wednesday, July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether religious employers are required to offer their employees health plans that include contraceptive coverage. In its opinion in Little Sisters of the Poor v....more
The Supreme Court just upheld two Trump-era rules expanding religious and moral exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate. The July 8 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania is just...more
In Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court this week upheld regulations issued by the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) that...more
On July 8, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two 7-2 decisions involving religious exemptions to federal employment and benefits laws....more
This week, the Supreme Court ruled that employers may exclude coverage for birth control from their health plans based upon moral or religious objections to contraception. ...more
Until this week, federal law required most insurance plans to cover the cost of birth control without a copay. However, the history behind this issue can be traced back much further....more
On July 8, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania, holding that the Department of Health and Human Services validly created...more