This week’s How Appealing roundup, a well-respected resource for the latest in appellate litigation, is filled with engaging legal stories and discussions.
To begin, a recent post by Dennis Crouch on “Patently-O” discusses a case involving Apple. Termed as “Judge Dodging: Apple loses Mandamus Transfer Action This Time“, it investigates complex issues of jurisdictional shift.
Another high-impact case potentially impacting the jurisdiction of the FDA is probed by James M. Beck in his post on the “Drug & Device Law” blog. The post speculates on the possibility of the Supreme Court blindsiding FDA on First Amendment grounds.
Law professors Reva Siegel and Mary Ziegler delve into the history and potential future threats of sexual and reproductive freedom in their SSRN article titled “Comstockery: How Government Censorship Gave Birth to the Law of Sexual and Reproductive Freedom, and May Again Threaten It.”
A much-discussed topic this week is the fallout over the Idaho attorney general’s controversial arrangement with the activist legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom. Susan Rinkunas examines the aftermath in her thoughtful essay on Balls and Strikes.
In other news, a judge’s approval of a $125 million PACER fees settlement with US judiciary is reported by Reuters’ Nate Raymond. His report provides an insightful overview of the case.
Finally, permissive interpretation is the focus of Richard M. Re’s post on “Re’s Judicata”, as he presents an interesting take on “Pulsifer v. United States”.
It’s quite evident that the world of appellate litigation continues to be as dynamic and compelling as ever, with intricate legal arguments and significant implications for the corporate and law firms landscape. Proactive awareness and understanding of these cases and discussions is crucial for legal professionals to keep pace with this rapidly evolving field.
The original roundup can be found on the Above The Law blog.