Writing for Texas Law Review Online, the firm’s David Coale offers a critical examination of four cases from the Supreme Court’s 2023–24 term that attempted to balance historical precedent with today’s economic realities. He writes:

Those cases illustrate a straightforward comparison (Jarkesy), an attempted comparison that failed (Moody), and comparisons where the past was easy to see but hard to clarify (CFPB and Rahimi).

He concludes that efforts by appellate courts and the Supreme Court to apply historic imperatives to economic regulations –especially given the evolution of business practices and technologies – “is more likely to lead to outcomes based on observer bias rather than valid legal principles.”

Read the complete article here.