As the regulatory and business environments in which our clients operate grow increasingly complex, we identify and offer perspectives on significant legal developments affecting businesses, organizations, and individuals. Each post aims to address timely issues and trends by evaluating impactful decisions, sharing observations of key enforcement changes, or distilling best practices drawn from experience. InsightZS also features personal interest pieces about the impact of our legal work in our communities and about associate life at Zuckerman Spaeder.
Information provided on InsightZS should not be considered legal advice and expressed views are those of the authors alone. Readers should seek specific legal guidance before acting in any particular circumstance.
Subscribe
Contributing Editors
Filter
Results
-
How a Chatbot Broke Up a Corporate Marriage: A Cautionary Tale from Delaware
The Delaware Court of Chancery’s March 2026 decision in Fortis Advisors, LLC v. Krafton, Inc. is an attention-grabbing example of the types of legal issues that can arise when a founder and acquirer’s relationship goes south. The decision also features a CEO using ChatGPT to plot a strategy for avoiding a massive earnout, ignoring the warnings of his colleagues, and watching his chatbot exchanges become trial exhibits.
-
Potential Administrative Procedure Act Challenges to ICE’s New I-9 Fact Sheet
On March 16, 2026, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released a “Fact Sheet” that significantly varies ICE’s longstanding interpretation of Form I-9, the document employers use to verify an individual’s eligibility to work in the U.S.1 By statute, “technical or procedural” errors in completing Form I-9 may be corrected, whereas substantive errors expose the employer to monetary penalties.2 The new Fact Sheet reclassifies several common clerical errors—such as omitting the title of the signatory—from technical failures to substantive violations. As described below, the Fact Sheet’s unexplained changes may be susceptible to challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
-
From Carpenter to Chatrie: Location Tracking and the Future of the Fourth Amendment
In the landmark 2018 case Carpenter v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court grappled with what it termed the “new phenomenon” of law enforcement’s ability to “chronicle a person’s past movements through the record of his cell phone signals.”1 At issue in Carpenter was cell-site location information (CSLI), a form of individualized location data generated when mobile phones connect to nearby cell towers. In holding that law enforcement’s acquisition of a suspect’s CSLI was a “search” entitled to Fourth Amendment protection, the Supreme Court recognized that “the progress of science has afforded law enforcement a powerful new tool to carry out its important responsibilities.”2 The Court nevertheless recognized the dangers of unfettered government access to individuals’ “deeply revealing” location information—access “the Framers, ‘after consulting the lessons of history,’ drafted the Fourth Amendment to prevent.”3
-
D.C. High Court Upholds the District’s Anti-SLAPP Act, in Win for Home Rule
On November 13, the D.C. Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, issued a unanimous opinion in Banks v. Hoffman, holding that the D.C. Council did not exceed its authority by passing the Anti-SLAPP Act.1 In so doing, the Court reversed a prior panel decision, which David Reiser analyzed for this blog,2 and rendered a decision touching multiple hot-button legal topics, including D.C. Home Rule and lawsuits targeting expression protected by the First Amendment.
-
Reconsidering Bankruptcy’s Place in Student Debt Relief
In the early 2000’s, James Rosen took out $60,000 in federal student loans to help his two daughters pay for college. Over the next two decades, he worked to pay down the debt. But he also suffered stretches of serious illness and, by 2011, could no longer work. By the time he was 79 years old, Mr. Rosen had made nearly $38,000 in payments, yet interest had pushed his balance even higher than when he started—over $63,000. Living on a fixed income with mounting health needs, repayment had become impossible.
-
Can Baltimore City Regulate ICE Arrests in City Courthouses?
In a recent post, John J. Connolly considers whether the Circuit Court for Baltimore City through an administrative order can regulate the actions of federal immigration enforcement agents within city courthouses. The June 30 order requires that all law enforcement officers entering city circuit court facilities on official business identify themselves and the purpose of their visit to the Baltimore City Sheriff’s Office and wear their agency’s uniform or prominently display identification. Although the order does not mention federal law enforcement officers, it appears to respond to tensions that have recently arisen when ICE agents make arrests in or around state courthouses.
-
Understanding the Second Chance Amendment Act: A Guide for D.C. Practitioners on Expungement and Record-Sealing
The Second Chance Amendment Act, D.C.’s new expungement and record-sealing law, went into effect on March 1, 2025.1 This Act provides significant improvements, as D.C.’s prior regime was uniquely complex and restrictive. There is now automatic expungement and automatic sealing in certain cases,2 which applies retroactively.3 D.C. practitioners should consider changes brought by the Act and whether any clients are—or will soon be—entitled to expungement or record-sealing relief that was previously unavailable.
-
Recent Developments in the “Change in the Law” Reason for Compassionate Release
Over the last several years, thousands of incarcerated individuals have filed motions for compassionate release.1 As part of the submission process, individuals must outline the “extraordinary and compelling” reasons that warrant a reduction in their sentence.
-
For Whom the Bell Tolls: Does Wisconsin Bell Indicate Waning Support for Invalidating the FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions?
In the summer of 2023, Justice Thomas suggested in a dissenting opinion in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources that Article II of the Constitution might not permit a qui tam relator to sue in the name of the government absent government intervention. Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett separately urged the Court to review this question. After Polansky, defendants in non-intervened qui tam cases around the country filed motions to dismiss on the grounds that the case could not proceed consistent with Article II.
-
What Is “Illegal DEI”? Employers and Workers Are Still Looking for Answers
Five years ago, companies were eager to adopt diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. Now, the pendulum has swung in the other direction. DEI programs are under attack, and employers are trying to figure out what kinds of programs they can maintain without bringing unwanted scrutiny.
-
As Priorities Change in Cross-border Criminal Investigations, Potential Targets Must Account for Possible Tolling of Limitations
As the new administration shifts some criminal enforcement priorities, particularly relating to activities abroad, potential targets of cross-border investigations are re-evaluating their strategies and exposure to enforcement risk. At this month’s American Bar Association White Collar Crime Institute, one panel1 took a close look at how the administration’s foreign policy objectives and criminal enforcement priorities could impact cases where the government relies on international judicial assistance to investigate and prosecute criminal charges. Panelist comments and audience questions stressed a practical consideration for defense attorneys: stay mindful of both the statutory limitations period and the potential applicability of a special tolling provision where evidence is located abroad.
-
What to Expect in Consumer Protection in the New Administration
At the 2025 American Bar Association (“ABA”) White Collar Crime Institute in Miami, industry veterans forecasted the new Trump Administration’s white collar objectives by examining trends during the first Trump presidency. In the absence of officials from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to outline the Administration’s priorities, the “Consumer Protection – Health, Safety, Fraud, and Privacy Enforcement” panelists—Ethan Davis, Former Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, DOJ, Hon. Patricia Brown Holmes, (Ret.), and Arun Rao, partner at Mayer Brown—added to the chorus of “wait and see” remarks heard throughout the conference, while also sharing insights about likely areas of focus in consumer protection.
-
Examining the United States Sentencing Commission’s Recent Voting History for Insight into its 2025 Term
At the American Bar Association’s White-Collar Crime Institute’s conference held in Miami, Florida on March 6-7, 2025, two panelists from the panel “Sentencing: Effective Mitigation in White-Collar Cases” differed on whether the United States Sentencing Commission (the “Commission” or “USSC”) would adopt any amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines this 2025 term. Rachel E. Barkow, a Professor at New York University School of Law and a former member of the Commission, explained that there are two proposed amendments currently before the Commission,1 but she did not think that any amendments would be passed this year due to the composition of the Commission. She further explained that while the Commission is supposed to have seven voting members and requires the affirmative vote of at least four members to adopt an amendment,2 it currently has only five voting members split along party lines (three Democrats, two Republicans).3 By contrast, panelist James E. Felman, a Partner at Kynes Markman & Felman in Tampa, opined that because the Commission tends to vote unanimously, its current three-two party-split would not necessarily bar the Commission from adopting the amendments this term.
-
The False Claims Act Could Become the New “It” Statute in an Uncertain Enforcement Landscape
Uncertainty was a prominent theme at last week’s America Bar Association (“ABA”) White Collar Crime Institute. The Trump administration has issued a series of directives that seem to shift and narrow the scope of (if not entirely abandon) a host of traditional investigative and enforcement priorities. This has left companies and their counsel in the unfortunate position of trying to divine where they face the most risk of regulatory action with little clear guidance. However, the administration’s recent comments and priorities suggest that one federal statute in particular, the False Claims Act (“FCA”), is viewed as fertile ground for increased enforcement activity. In a shifting and murky regulatory landscape, the FCA might be the one statute whose increased enforcement is all but assured.
-
A Circuit Split Deepens on Burden to Establish Foreign Privilege to Defeat Section 1782 Discovery
For litigants in foreign courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1782 has long been a promising, if finicky, tool to access discoverable materials by filing an ex parte application in U.S. federal district court. The statute provides certain protections to preserve foreign privileges, but courts have struggled to determine whether a party seeking to defeat Section 1782 discovery bears a burden to establish the existence of a foreign privilege. In a recent decision, the Fourth Circuit joined three other circuits in assigning such a burden but demurred on whether to join the Second and Fifth Circuits in requiring that burden to be satisfied by “authoritative proof.” See In re Banco Mercantil del Norte, S.A., 126 F.4th 926, 933-34 (4th Cir. 2025) (“Banorte”). The decision sets up a circuit split with practical consequences to targets of Section 1782 discovery seeking to rely on foreign privileges.
-
New Question for Expert Witness: Who Drafted This Report, You or Your Machine?
A federal judge in Minnesota recently granted a motion to exclude an expert declaration explaining the dangers of AI deepfakes because the declaration itself contained AI-hallucinated citations.1 The case was a First Amendment challenge to a Minnesota statute prohibiting deepfakes with intent to influence elections, and the State tendered the expert’s declaration in defense of the statute. The judge noted “[t]he irony” in opposing AI-generated deepfakes with a declaration that contained AI-driven hallucinations, but she prudently rested her decision on the inability to trust an expert declaration submitted under penalty of perjury that was not adequately reviewed by the expert or the counsel who submitted it. The judge “add[ed her] voice to a growing chorus of courts around the country declaring the same message: verify AI-generated content in legal submissions!”2
-
At the First Oral Argument Post-Inauguration, Supreme Court Will Hear Arguments About the Contours of Forum Shopping in E-Cigarette Case
On January 21, 2025, the morning after the presidential inauguration, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in FDA v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, an e-cigarette case where the Court will decide whether tobacco companies may select any court of their choosing when challenging Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) decisions denying approval of product applications.
-
More on the Meaning of Corruption: Clues and Opportunities in Snyder v. United States
Previous posts have discussed the substantial uncertainty around the meaning of “corruptly,” a mens rea term used across a variety of federal criminal statutes in the areas of public corruption, financial regulation, and obstruction of justice. A recent Supreme Court case, Snyder v. United States, 144 S. Ct. 1047 (2024), adds to the uncertainty. Even more than before, parties in corruption cases should plan for potential arguments that the “corruptly” mens rea term is unconstitutionally vague or susceptible to narrowing constructions.
-
To Err Is Human, But Artificial Intelligence Will Make Human Errors Worse
A recent blog post advocating using Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) to “automate” criminal appeals instead raises the concern that common flaws in contemporary judicial decision-making will only get worse if we cede legal writing to AI Large Language Models. The post analyzes an appellate decision interpreting the federal sentencing guidelines in which all three (human) judges reach the startling conclusion that their decision is incorrect under the guidelines themselves. That conclusion is deeply flawed—the court was not bound to reach the wrong result—but at least the judges understood the result was wrong, which leaves an ember of hope that another court will get it right. AI, by contrast, likely would magnify the errors that led a succession of human judges astray.
-
Mental Health America | Making Health Coverage Work for Us: The Road to Full Access to Care
In September, Mental Health America held its annual conference in Washington, DC, bringing together thousands of providers, government officials, media representatives, advocates, and members of the community to address mental health needs, care, equity, and social influences. Key topics included community responses to crises, local solutions for health equity, emerging trends in mental health treatment, substance use, and youth-driven solutions.