Insights

In Trump v. CASA, the Supreme Court significantly constrained the equitable authority of federal district courts to grant universal or nationwide injunctive relief, clarifying that, with specific exceptions, a federal court’s power to grant relief is limited to the parties before it. When it was issued, many bemoaned CASA’s implications for preventing government overreach.

In October 2025, the Second Circuit addressed a recurring procedural issue: the standard of review district judges must apply to objections to magistrate judge reports and recommendations (“R&Rs”) on dispositive motions. In Nambiar v. The Central Orthopedic Group, LLP, the Second Circuit clarified that district judges are required to conduct a de novo review of any portion of an R&R to which a party has made timely and specific objections—even when those objections restate arguments previously made before the magistrate judge. This decision resolves confusion stemming from district courts that have limited de novo review to "new" arguments, and it sets clear expectations for how parties should challenge R&Rs going forward.

In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the civil penalties issued by the SEC against individuals for committing securities fraud were unconstitutional because they were levied without a jury trial.[1]