In February 2025, the Fifth Circuit issued an opinion in United States v. Peterson, ruling that suppressors were not “firearms” and thus not subject to Second Amendment protection.

George Peterson was the proprietor of PDW Solutions, LLC, a firearm business that he operated in part out of his home. In summer of 2022, as part of an ongoing Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) investigation, a search warrant was executed at his home. Among the items discovered was an unregistered suppressor. Peterson was indicted for possession of the unregistered suppressor under the National Firearms Act (NFA). He filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the NFA’s registration framework violated the Second Amendment and that the search by the ATF violated the Fourth Amendment so the evidence obtained thereby should be suppressed.

Devas v. Antrix considers whether foreign governments are protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in the context of international arbitrations. The Ninth Circuit held that Antrix, an Indian government-owned corporation, lacked sufficient “minimum contacts” to meet the Due Process Clause and therefore dismissed attempts by petitioner Devas to enforce an arbitration award from India. Devas, supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and leading scholars of international arbitration, is asking the Court to reverse arguing that U.S. courts need not consider due process protections for foreign states, and are authorized under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act to enforce such awards even without a nexus to the United States.

While there are strong originalist and textualist arguments in favor of granting foreign states constitutional due process protections, the Court’s decision to grant such protections could undercut U.S. treaty obligations to enforce foreign arbitral awards and the broader international system for commercial arbitration. It could also affect other litigation against foreign states in U.S. courts, including lawsuits seeking to recover for state-sponsored terrorist attacks.

In late January, President Donald Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox, a member of the National Labor Relations Board. The termination was controversial because Member Wilcox, like all Board members, was arguably protected from removal by the National Labor Relations Act. The Act says that a Board member may be removed only for “malfeasance” or “neglect of duty.” It also requires the member to be given “notice and a hearing.” In firing Member Wilcox, the President cited no malfeasance or neglect; nor did he give her a hearing. Instead, he argued that regardless of the Act’s language, he could remove her under his inherent authority as head of the executive branch.
Member Wilcox responded by suing for reinstatement. A federal district court will hear arguments in the case on March 5. Join us that afternoon as Alex MacDonald, co-chair of Littler Mendelson’s Workplace Policy Institute, breaks down the case.
Featuring:

Alexander T. MacDonald, Shareholder & Co-Chair of the Workplace Policy Institute, Littler Mendelson P.C.

Marlean Ames, a straight woman, was denied promotion and later demoted in her role at the Ohio Department of Youth Services by her lesbian supervisor. The position she sought and her former position were then given to a lesbian woman and a gay man respectively. This prompted Ames to file suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that she was unlawfully discriminated against based on her sexual orientation because she is heterosexual. The Sixth Circut Court of Appeals affirmed the district court in holding that because Ames was part of the majority group, she had the additional requirement of demonstrating the “background circumstances” that the employer discriminates against majority group members.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to answer the question of whether, in addition to pleading the other elements of an employment discrimination claim, a majority-group plaintiff must show background circumstances to support the suspicion that the employer discriminates against the majority group. Oral argument is scheduled for February 26th.
Featuring:

In June 2021, the Superior Court of Connecticut approved amendments to Connecticut Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4, which defines professional misconduct. The amendments expanded the definition of misconduct in subsection (7) to include engaging in “conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination…in conduct related to the practice of law” based on a long list of protected characteristics including “race, color, ancestry, sex, pregnancy, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, status as a veteran, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or marital status”.
In November 2021, Mario Cerame and Timothy C. Moynahan, two Connecticut lawyers who regularly presented on issues potentially implicated by the new rule, brought suit, alleging the rule as amended violated their First and Fourteenth Amendments. They argued the rule was impermissibly overbroad and chilled lawful speech in so far as it was unclear what speech may be interpreted to be violative of the rule. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of standing. Cerame and Moynahan appealed to the Second Circuit, which, in December 2024 vacated the district court’s decision, ruling they did have standing and remanding for further proceedings.
Join us for a litigation update for this interesting case implicating professional responsibility, ABA model rules, and free speech with Margaret Little of NCLA, which represents Cerame and Moynahan.
Featuring:

Margaret A. Little, Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties Alliance
(Moderator) Prof. Josh Blackman, Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law Houston

Section 8(c) of the National Labor Relations Act states an employer’s communication is not an unfair labor practice if it does not contain a threat of reprisal, force, or a promise of a benefit. Historically, this provision was understood to protect employers’ free speech rights to hold mandatory meetings with employees to express their views on unionization.
However, in Amazon.com Services LLC, 373 NLRB No. 136 (Nov. 14, 2024), the National Labor Relations Board held that mandatory meetings where an employer expresses its views on unions violate the Act. The Board deemed such meetings unlawful, even if the views expressed during them do not independently constitute an unfair labor practice.
Bill Messenger and Roger King will examine the history of Section 8(c), the Board’s interpretation of its scope, and the potential outcome of the Board’s decision on appeal to the 11th Circuit.
Featuring:

William L. Messenger, Vice President and Legal Director, National Right to Work Legal Defense and Education Foundation, Inc.
(Moderator) G. Roger King, Senior Labor and Employment Counsel, HR Policy Association

The Supreme Court’s decision in Collins v. Yellen represented a paradigm shift. Now, in cases involving claims that an agency official is unconstitutionally insulated from removal by the President, litigants can face an uphill climb to obtain meaningful relief. This state of affairs arguably has a serious impact on the incentive to bring these kinds of lawsuits going forward. This webinar will discuss the future of presidential removal power litigation in light of Collins, as well as related questions about the Court’s understanding of the presidential removal power more generally and how private litigants can continue to bring these claims within the framework of Collins.
Featuring:

Prof. David Froomkin, Assistant Professor of Law, The University of Houston Law Center
Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLP
(Moderator) Prof. Christopher J. Walker, Professor of Law, The University of Michigan Law School

The Supreme Court is set to hear argument this term in a case raising both the nondelegation and private nondelegation doctrines.

On July 24, 2024, the en banc Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal Universal Service Fund (“USF”), which funds broadband service for rural areas and hospitals, schools, libraries, and low-income individuals, is an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’s legislative authority. In the Communications Act, Congress directed the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to collect contributions, or payments, from certain providers of telecommunications. The FCC employs the private Universal Service Administrative Company (“USAC”) to administer certain aspects of USF, including calculating the contribution factor based on the needs of each program established by the FCC pursuant to the Communications Act.
The Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals, as well as a panel of the Fifth Circuit, had previously upheld the constitutionality of the delegation of authority. And the FCC defended the Act against delegation challenges. It argued that the Communication Act provides an intelligible principle by which USF is to be administered and that USAC plays only a ministerial role.

E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera concerns what standard of evidence the court should apply in cases of exceptions to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The District Court decided that E.M.D. was liable for some employee overtime because it did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that its sales representatives were outside salesmen. Therefore, they were not exempt from normal overtime rules. The Fourth Circut agreed, affirming the use of the clear-and-convincing evidence standard.
On January 15th, 2025, the Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, reversed the Fourth Circut’s decision and remanded the case. In an opinion by Justice Kavanaugh, it held that the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard applies when an employer seeks to show that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Featuring:

In Barnes v. Felix the Supreme Court is set to address a circuit split concerning the context courts should consider when evaluating an excessive force claim brought under the Fourth Amendment.
Is the correct rubric the “moment of threat” doctrine (which was applied by the Fifth Circuit here and has been adopted by several other circuits including the Second, Fourth, and Eighth), which considers only whether there was imminent danger creating a reasonable fear for one’s life in the immediate moment(s) preceding the use of force? Alternately, should a court consider the “totality of circumstances” (along the lines of the precedent of the First, Third, Sixth, Seventh, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits) when assessing if it was a justified use of force?
Join us for a Courthouse Steps program where we will break down and analyze how oral argument went before the Court.
Featuring:

Matthew P. Cavedon, Robert Pool Fellow in Law and Religion, Emory University School of Law