Business Litigation

This update follows our March 3, 2026 publication, “The Supreme Court Strikes Down IEEPA Tariffs: Practical Implications and Next Steps,” which analyzed the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump holding that the IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Since that publication, the U.S. Court of International Trade has issued orders directing U.S. Customs and Border Protection to process refunds, and CBP has begun developing a new automated refund system. This update addresses those developments and provides practical guidance for importers seeking to recover IEEPA duties.

In a 6-3 decision issued on February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs. The Court held in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs, invalidating the “reciprocal” tariffs imposed on nearly every country, along with the higher “trafficking and immigration” rates targeting Mexico, Canada and China. Tariffs imposed under other statutory authorities remain in full effect.

The California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, recently reversed a defense verdict in Higginson v. Kia Motors America, Inc., No. D082322, 2026 WL 82098 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2026), ordering a new trial and monetary sanctions due to the defendant’s discovery misconduct. The decision highlights the critical importance of proper search term methodology, good-faith participation in meet and confer processes, and accurate verification of discovery responses.

In 2026, hundreds of new laws will affect litigation and business operations across California and New York. This update highlights significant statutory and regulatory developments with practical implications for in-house legal teams and practitioners, spanning civil litigation, corporate governance, employment, real estate, artificial intelligence, and cannabis.

The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, recently revisited the appealability of district court denials of anti-SLAPP motions. For over two decades, immediate appeals of such denials were permitted. However, relying on the strict limits of the collateral order doctrine, the Ninth Circuit has reversed this stance, holding that anti-SLAPP denials are not immediately appealable in federal court. Consequently, where an anti-SLAPP motion is litigated in federal court, parties must now litigate to final judgment before seeking appellate review of an anti-SLAPP motion denial. Gopher Media LLC v. Melone, 154 F.4th 696 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc). This rule stands in sharp contrast to California state court procedure, which permits immediate appeals from anti-SLAPP denials.