Legal professionals who keep a close watch on appellate litigation will find a wealth of insights in the latest edition of Howard Bashman’s How Appealing blog, the first blog devoted exclusively to appellate news. This week’s roundup brings a diverse array of critical legal developments to the fore.
Ian Millhiser explores the implications and criticisms of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most controversial decisions in a thought-provoking essay available on Vox. This reflection is a sobering examination of the lasting impact of some of the court’s rulings.
In the corporate litigation sphere, Jef Feeley and Damian Garde of Bloomberg report that Johnson & Johnson is eyeing Texas as a venue for its next round of litigation over baby powder cancer claims. The company’s prior attempts were blocked in New Jersey, making Texas a potentially more favorable jurisdiction. For more details, visit Bloomberg.
The Eleventh Circuit is set to reconsider a case involving healthcare exclusions for transgender individuals, a move that could have significant implications for employment law. Chris Geidner offers an in-depth analysis on his Substack.
Bayer has secured a favorable ruling in an appeal concerning its Roundup product, which may influence future cancer suits against the company. This decision could potentially escalate to a review by the U.S. Supreme Court. An elaborate account of this development is available on Bloomberg.
Finally, Michael C. Dorf contemplates whether stripping jurisdiction could prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from invalidating President Biden’s proposal for SCOTUS term limits. His thoughts can be accessed on his blog, Dorf on Law.
These stories, along with additional legal analyses, can be explored in more detail on the How Appealing Weekly Roundup.