Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Deep Dive Into Judge Jackson’s Preliminary Injunction Order Against CFPB Acting Director Vought
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 303: Listen and Learn -- Injunctions and Restraining Orders (Civ Pro)
False Claims Act Insights - Can DE&I Initiatives Lead to Potential False Claims Act Liability?
SCOTUS Limits Availability of Injunctions in NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Cases - Employment Law This Week®
Post-Injunction Enforcement — Highway to NIL Podcast
The NCAA's Response to the NIL Recruitment Injunction — Highway to NIL Podcast
NIL Recruitment Injunction — Highway to NIL Podcast
Injunctions for All – Speaking of Litigation Podcast
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Jack Nicklaus Companies Landed Hole-In-One With Court’s Recent Injunction
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Jack Nicklaus Companies Landed Hole-In-One With Court’s Recent Injunction
#WorkforceWednesday: Employee Privacy and COVID-19, CMS Vaccine Mandate on Hold, Independent Contractor Classification - Employment Law This Week®
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 86: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Remedies
#WorkforceWednesday: Component 2 Pay Data Shutdown, CDC Coronavirus Guidance, and California Employers Fight Back - Employment Law This Week®
E18: ICANN Loses First GDPR Court Ruling in Germany
On April 4, 2025, the United States Supreme Court granted an emergency application to vacate the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ March 10 temporary restraining order (TRO) in the case of Department of Education v. California....more
On April 8, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on reinstating federal workers. The case arose from a lawsuit in which the...more
The motions docket of the U.S. Supreme Court remains busy. Following the April 4 decision in Department of Education v. California—in which the Court, treating a temporary restraining order (TRO) as if it were a preliminary...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Lackey v. Stinnie, 145 S. Ct. 659 (2025), limits the ability of civil rights litigants to recover their attorney fees under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act, specifically...more
While not a decision on the merits, the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion on April 4, 2025, in Department of Education v. California is worth considering....more
A recent decision by the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (the “Court”) concluded that a federal court cannot prevent a state court foreclosure pursuant to the abstention doctrine set out by...more
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” aiming to narrow the application of birthright citizenship in the United States. The...more
The Trump Administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court to limit nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of the executive order (EO) to end birthright citizenship. Following his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025, President...more
The first weeks of the Trump Administration have been defined by executive orders and new policies that were immediately challenged on constitutional or statutory grounds....more
A recent Supreme Court ruling could impact your business by limiting when you must pay fees in employment litigation or when you may recover fees after challenging state regulations in court. In the Lackey v. Stinnie decision...more
On February 25, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who obtain a preliminary injunction are not eligible for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) because they do not qualify as “prevailing...more
The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases yesterday, one of which, Lackey v. Stinnie, involved an action brought pursuant to 42 U. S. C. §1983 and should be of particular interest to the many readers of this blog who practice...more
On February 25, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lackey v. Stinnie, holding that obtaining a preliminary injunction does not bestow a litigant with the status of “prevailing party,” as required for an award of attorney’s...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions today: Lackey v. Stinnie, No. 23-621: This case clarifies when attorneys’ fees may be awarded to a “prevailing party” in a civil rights lawsuit via 42 U.S.C....more
Developments concerning the enforceability and enforcement of the CTA came at a rapid clip last week. As things stand, the government may enforce the CTA pending a Texas court appeal in Smith v. U.S. Department of the...more
As of February 18, 2025, the US Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s (FinCEN) Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) reporting requirements have been restored—at least temporarily. The new filing...more
Mark your calendars. After months of legal back and forth, the Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) reporting requirements are back in effect, for now, with a new deadline of March 21, 2025....more
On February 18, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas stayed its nationwide preliminary injunction on beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). With...more
On January 23, 2025, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) reversed the U.S. district court’s preliminary injunction staying the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and the implementing Reporting Rule in Texas Top Cop Shop v...more
On February 18, 2025, the U.S. Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Texas lifted the last remaining nationwide preliminary injunction of the CTA in the Smith case. This follows a decision on January 23, 2025, by...more
Companies are once again required to comply with the CTA and its reporting obligations. As discussed in our previous update, last month the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) stayed (i.e., suspended the effect of)...more
As discussed last month, in early January, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction temporarily blocking enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) (see Smith et al....more
The preliminary injunction in Smith, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Treasury that was still pausing any required filings by reporting companies under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) was lifted on February 17, 2025 by...more
Here are the latest developments in the ongoing Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) saga...more
The Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) continues to take reporting companies on a roller coaster ride. Now, there are not just one, but two Eastern District of Texas federal cases challenging the requirement for certain...more