United States: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The Second Circuit recently ruled on the government's authority to conduct warrantless cell phone searches at border crossings, establishing that manual searches require no suspicion while leaving open critical questions about more invasive forensic examinations. This decision has significant implications for travelers carrying confidential business, legal, or personal information across U.S. borders.

A federal court recently denied class certification in a TCPA case after the plaintiff destroyed critical evidence by throwing his cell phone into the Mississippi River during litigation. The court found the plaintiff inadequate to represent the class due to this spoliation of evidence, which prevented the defendant from conducting forensic analysis and created a unique conflict of interest that other class members would not share.

Federal courts are grappling with whether communications with generative AI platforms receive attorney-client privilege or work product protection, with outcomes varying between criminal and civil cases. Recent rulings reveal critical distinctions in how courts treat AI-assisted materials depending on who uses them and whether counsel directed their creation.

In 1992, Sam Zakhem, a former U.S. ambassador to Bahrain (1986–1989), was indicted by a federal grand jury in Denver for willfully failing to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and for several other charges, including violating federal tax laws. He was indicted along with two associates, William R. Kennedy Jr., former publisher of the political Conservative Digest magazine, and Scott Stanley Jr., a former editor of the same publication.

Under Florida law, the distinction between a permissive and mandatory forum selection clause can hinge on something as small as a single comma. In Treasure Coast Classical Academy v. The Optima Foundation, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a comma separating a governing law provision from a venue designation provision rendered the venue clause permissive rather than mandatory, allowing the plaintiff to file suit in the venue where the causes of action accrued.

When an insurance administrator sends text messages to customers using data obtained through a dealership's point-of-sale system, can it claim an established business relationship exemption? A California federal court examines whether handling customer data for a partner creates direct liability and whether receiving information from a dealer constitutes a business relationship with the end customer.

Under Florida law, the distinction between a permissive and mandatory forum selection clause can hinge on something as small as a single comma. In Treasure Coast Classical Academy v. The Optima Foundation, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a comma separating a governing law provision from a venue designation provision rendered the venue clause permissive rather than mandatory, allowing the plaintiff to file suit in the venue where the causes of action accrued.

A California federal court dismissed claims under the Federal Wiretap Act and California Invasion of Privacy Act, ruling that plaintiffs failed to establish Article III standing when they could not prove their personal information was actually intercepted by third-party tracking technology on a retail website. The decision highlights the evidentiary burden plaintiffs must meet when alleging privacy violations through website tracking pixels and similar technologies.

The United States Supreme Court's unanimous decision in Montgomery v. Caribe Transport II, LLC fundamentally alters freight broker liability by eliminating a longstanding federal preemption defense. How will this ruling reshape carrier selection practices and expose brokers to increased negligent hiring claims across the nation?

For hundreds of years, the world’s sovereign nations refused to allow any other foreign sovereign to be sued in their courts without the sovereign’s consent. The guiding principle was “absolute sovereign immunity,” an outgrowth of the ancient legal precept rex non potest peccare, understood to mean “the king can do no wrong.” The principle also was recognized as wise foreign policy because it extended "grace and comity" to other sovereigns.

Recent federal court decisions are reshaping the landscape of personal jurisdiction and enforcement of international arbitration awards following the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization. The DC and Ninth Circuits have issued critical opinions clarifying how Fifth Amendment due process standards apply differently than traditional Fourteenth Amendment minimum contacts analysis, particularly in cases involving foreign sovereigns and international arbitration. These deve

The Texas Supreme Court's decision in Paxton v. City of Austin reveals a procedural trap for businesses suing the government: winning the right to be heard can paradoxically freeze the entire case. When governmental defendants challenge a court's jurisdiction and lose, they can immediately appeal, putting all proceedings on hold—potentially for months or years.