Blog

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s recent opinion in the Supreme Court’s ruling on Richard Glossip’s case brought renewed attention to the critical obligations prosecutors bear under landmark decisions familiar to both prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys: Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and Napue v. Illinois. Reading Glossip made me reflect on the solemn duty of disclosure—a duty I took seriously

The SEC’s Broader Pattern of Overreach The SEC has taken a significant step in expanding insider trading liability with its “shadow trading” theory, which targets corporate insiders who use material non-public information (MNPI) from their own companies to trade in economically linked firms. This theory was tested for the first time in SEC v. Panuwat, where the Commission successfully persuaded

I. Riley’s Foundation The Supreme Court’s ruling in Riley v. California affirmed that cellphones require heightened privacy protections due to their vast storage of personal data. The decision reinforced Fourth Amendment safeguards by requiring search warrants for cellphone data. Building on Riley, the D.C. Circuit in United States v. Brown addressed whether compelling biometric unlocks—forcing individuals to unlock their phones

In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court in Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 144 S. Ct. 1570 (2024) rejected the historically lenient standard used by some federal agencies when seeking preliminary injunctions, instead reaffirming that courts must apply the traditional four-factor test. While Starbucks, a case that involved the National Labor Relations Board, was an important decision in reaffirming equitable principles,

A subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is a formal request for documents or testimony related to an investigation into potential violations of federal securities laws. The SEC frequently issues subpoenas as part of its broader investigative process, particularly in cases involving suspected insider trading, securities fraud, or market manipulation. While receiving a subpoena does not necessarily imply