Wisconsin Law Journal – WI Legal News & Resources Wisconsin Legal News & Resources

A proposed federal regulation requiring employers to provide legally-married same-sex couples with benefits under the Family and Medical Leave Act regardless of their employees' state of residence could help clear up some complications caused by conflicting federal and state laws.

Two years after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a guidance warning employers against the overly-broad use of criminal background checks to screen potential new hires, it is drawing renewed criticism from employers, business groups and lawmakers who say it is cumbersome at best and dangerous at worst.

In a blow to the Obama administration that may hint at how a similar challenge will play out next year, the U.S. Supreme Court held Monday that the Affordable Care Act’s requirement that employer-funded health care plans cover certain contraceptives at no cost to employees violates the rights of religious owners of closely-held private companies.

The U.S. Supreme Court decision striking down President Barack Obama’s 2012 recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board invalidated hundreds of rulings made by the board over an 18-month period.

The legal food fight between a fruit juice manufacturer and soft drink conglomerate Coca-Cola Co. will continue in federal court now that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a false advertising claim was not precluded by federal law.

This week’s ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court holding that a man who bought a firearm on behalf of another qualified buyer violated a federal law barring “straw purchases” of guns may be limited to its facts.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held that preemption language in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act aimed at overriding state statutes of limitation does not extend to statutes of repose.

The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a pair of decisions that could make it more difficult to bring patent infringement claims in some circumstances, further hampering suits brought by so-called “patent trolls.”

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that police did not violate the Fourth Amendment by shooting more than a dozen rounds into the car of a fleeing unarmed suspect is making defense attorneys and civil liberties advocates uneasy.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling involving a classic Hollywood film may have dealt a knockout punch to a commonly used affirmative defense in a much broader range of cases, including patent litigation.

Criminal defense attorneys are expressing concerns about a recent decision from the U.S. Supreme Court holding that a vehicle search based on an anonymous 911 call was constitutional.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding a state law barring the consideration of race in public university admission decisions is having an immediate effect on a set of closely watched appeals involving an entirely different issue: the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling allowing prayers to be delivered before public town meetings divided the justices in two ways: in the result and in the standard that applies in determining whether public prayers violate the Establishment Clause.

U.S. Supreme Court rulings giving federal District Court judges more flexibility in awarding attorney fees to prevailing parties in patent suits could help curb the recent uptick in abusive patent litigation.

In the last oral argument of the term, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday took up a closely watched patent case that practitioners hoped would establish a standard for indirect patent infringement.

Applying centuries-old constitutional principles to situations not contemplated by the Founding Fathers is nothing new for the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court tackled a host of issues in a multi-layered First Amendment case involving alleged government corruption and claims of employment retaliation and qualified immunity.

In a case that could clarify the specificity with which patent holders must describe their inventions, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court and the attorneys arguing the case of Nautilus Inc. v. Biosig Instruments Inc., No. 13-369, had a tough time finding the right words to articulate a standard.

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed to cast some constitutional doubt on a state statute that prohibits making false statements about political candidates during oral arguments in the case of Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 13-193.

The ability of a group of North Carolina homeowners to bring a lawsuit over latent contamination in their well water will come down to the U.S. Supreme Court’s answer to a single, if technical, question: Is there a functional difference between a statute of limitations and a statute of repose?

During oral arguments Monday, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seemed disinclined to hold that a Lanham Act claim of false representation against beverage giant Coca-Cola was preempted under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

A recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that a common law claim was preempted by federal airline law was bad news for a disgruntled frequent flier who tried to sue Northwest Airlines for revoking his reward program privileges.

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are facing the difficult task of determining whether computer-implemented software programs that draw on non-computerized principles — a category that could encompass countless types of programs that are in use by millions of people — are eligible for patents.

Avoiding what attorneys say could have been an “earthquake” effect from businesses rushing to file for a collective $1 billion in tax refunds, the U.S. Supreme Court recently held that severance payments are wages for federal tax withholding purposes.

Labor and employment attorneys are taking special notice of a recent memorandum issued by the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board that requires regional officers to seek guidance from the board’s Division of Advice before proceeding on a broad array of matters.

Seeking to resolve a rather lopsided circuit split, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court seem poised to support a requirement that employees alleging breach of fiduciary duty overcome a pleading-stage presumption that employee stock plan fiduciaries acted with prudence.

Expressing an unwillingness to dramatically expand the scope of offenses that fall under the federal bank fraud statute, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court searched for some type of limiting principle this week during arguments in Loughrin v. U.S., 13-316.

In a case that turns on the definition of two words in the expansive language of the Bankruptcy Code, the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court tried to determine whether an inherited retirement account can be shielded from bankruptcy liquidation.

In its ruling in Rosemond v. U.S. that accomplice liability requires advance notice and the opportunity to withdraw, the U.S. Supreme Court tightened the standard the government must meet for a conviction under one of the most commonly used federal aiding and abetting statutes on the books.

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling extending Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblower protection to private contractors of publicly-traded companies has some attorneys concerned about the lack of any limiting principle.