News

The Texas Supreme Court recently handed down two decisions clarifying its interpretation of governmental immunity and waiver under Section 271.152 of the Texas Local Government Code. According to associate Adam Greiner, these decisions are valuable indications of the court’s narrow read of the Local Government Code—and its overall willingness to constrain the breadth of governmental immunity.

On April 23, 2024, the FTC announced its final Rule banning non-compete clauses for most workers as unfair competition under federal law. This final Rule has already been challenged in two district courts in Texas. But even if it does not go into force across the entire country, individual states may decide to follow suit, becoming less hospitable to non-compete clauses currently held to be enforceable under state law. Senior counsel Brandon Winchester and associate Fraser Holmes outline key considerations—and potential solutions—for businesses seeking to minimize damage to their operations.

On March 6, 2024, the SEC voted 3-2 to adopt final rules requiring registrants to disclose climate-related information. However, a multitude of legal challenges to these rules have been consolidated before the Eighth Circuit, which is now tasked with determining their legality. As the litigation proceeds, the case will have important consequences for the regulatory power of federal agencies and the ultimate disclosure requirements for registrants. Partner Persis Dean and associate Gabe Slater outline key changes in the new rules and offer guidance for registrants seeking to prepare for compliance.

Four years on from the Supreme Court’s monumental decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, the results have been a mixed bag for all parties involved. In their previous McGirt update, managing partner Andy Hicks and associate Dave Finkel analyzed potential tax and regulatory implications in the first few months following the decision. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, they update those initial predictions and reflect on McGirt’s effects in the Sooner State.

On January 17, 2024, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in tandem cases Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc., et al. v. Dept. of Commerce, et al., which ask whether the court should overrule one of its most frequently cited precedents: the Chevron doctrine. Hicks Johnson staff attorney Jennifer Cordell explains the doctrine’s history and application, then outlines one of the court’s available paths in addressing the issue of statutory silence.

Federal courts have long held that Title VII discrimination must consist of material harm or disadvantage. However, on December 6, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in a Title VII case out of the Eighth Circuit, Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, that could radically lower this threshold – and reshape the landscape of workplace discrimination law entirely. Hicks Johnson associate Dave Finkel analyzes the decision’s potential implications, including challenges to employer DEI programs.

On December 4, 2023, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that may have major implications for bankruptcy law in the Fifth Circuit. While the Fifth Circuit has held that bankruptcy courts may not incorporate third-party releases, this case, Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al., challenges the legality of Purdue’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization plan on the grounds that the plan exceeds the Bankruptcy Code’s authorization by releasing claims held by non-debtors against other non-debtor third parties without the claimants’ consent. Partner Marc Tabolsky and associate Adam Greiner discuss the case’s background as well as its potential to reverse current Fifth Circuit precedent that denies the use of releases between non-debtors in Chapter 11 reorganization plans.

On June 2, 2023, the Texas Supreme Court agreed to hear Ammonite Oil & Gas Corp. v. Railroad Commission of Texas and EOG Resources, which concerns a state regulator’s rejection of 16 applications submitted by Ammonite to force pool its mineral estate with adjacent wells operated by EOG under the Texas Mineral Interest Pooling Act (MIPA). Now, the court is poised to weigh in on several points regarding the scope and interpretation of the MIPA. Partner Persis Dean and associate Kelly Swanson provide key details of the case as well as its potential implications.