The Lawletter Vol. 51 No. 5

Anne Hemenway, Senior Attorney

      The United States Supreme Court was busy during the 2025-2026 term hearing and deciding numerous decisions which could impact the upcoming mid-term elections. The cases brought before the Court ranged from narrowing the scope of the Voting Rights Act to campaign financing to absentee ballot counting. The following are summaries of just a few of the decisions over the past six months.

      In Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. 85, 146 S. Ct. 1131 (2026), the Supreme Court held that under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. §§ 10301, et seq. (the "VRA"), a state cannot be required to create additional majority-minority districts in its state redistricting map if the state's plan is already in compliance with the VRA. The Court's majority ruled that any such plan would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Earlier, a federal judge in Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F. Supp. 3d 759 (M.D. La. 2022), vacated and remanded, 86 F.4th 574 (5th Cir. 2023), ruled that the state's 2022 congressional map violated Section 2 of the VRA because it did not include an additional majority-black district. After the state redrew its maps to conform with the federal court's decision, the new map was challenged. The court in Callais v. Landry, 732 F. Supp. 3d 574 (W.D. La. 2024), ruled that the new map violated the Fourteenth Amendment, and the State of Louisiana appealed to the Supreme Court. In its April 29, 2026 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the lower court's order to add a second majority-minority district in the new Louisiana congressional map constituted unconstitutional racial gerrymandering and rendered the map unenforceable.

Lawletter Vol. 51 No. 4

Anne Hemenway—Senior Attorney

    On August 13, 2026, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the United States Department of Justice's ("DOJ") complaint against Harvard University, which had been filed on March 20, 2026. United States v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, No. 26-11352-RGS, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181060, 2026 WL 2343193 (D. Mass. Aug. 13, 2026). In that case, the DOJ alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., based on three incidents that took place at Harvard during the 2023-2024 school year. However, the District Court concluded that those incidents were too isolated and episodic to support a noncompliance action under Title VI. While the government attempted to reposition itself and tried to support its claim with other more current violations, the court was not convinced, and granted Harvard's motion to dismiss.

The Lawletter No. 50 Vol. 3

 Anne Hemenway—Senior Attorney 

        In March 2025, the American Federation of Teachers ("AFT") filed a lawsuit against the United States Department of Education (U.S. Dist. Ct. D.C. Civ. Action 25-802 (RBW)) for denying federal student loan borrowers their rights to an affordable repayment plan and to debt forgiveness opportunities which are mandated in their loan terms. These student loan income-driven repayment plans were mandated by Congress in part by President Biden's Savings on a Valuable Education ("SAVE") Plan, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1070 et seq., and the Department of Education’s revised regulations which provided more generous terms for income-based repayment plans. See Missouri v. Trump, 128 F.4th 979 (8th Cir. 2025) (citing SAVE Rule, 88 Fed. Reg. at 43901-02). Other students represented in the pending AFT class-action lawsuit are seeking relief through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Buyback program. At the end of August 2025, the Department of Education had a backlog of 1,076,266 income-driven repayment plan applications.

The Lawletter Vol. 50 No. 1

Anne Hemenway—Senior Attorney

      Over 90,000 individuals have sued Johnson & Johnson and other parties for damages alleging that its talcum powder products—including Johnson's Baby Powder, which has been widely used on babies over the past 50 years—contain asbestos, which causes cancer. While Johnson & Johnson denies that its products contain asbestos, and insists that there is no link between its products and cancer, it has stopped selling talc-based baby powder worldwide.

            Since 2021, Johnson & Johnson has tried to use the bankruptcy courts to settle the tens of thousands of claims against it, without success. The effort failed in 2021 and in 2023, and most recently failed a third time on March 31, 2025. In 2021, Johnson & Johnson created a subsidiary called LTL Management and then pulled all of the baby powder claims into the subsidiary. A day after that was accomplished, LTL Management declared bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The LTL bankruptcy was transferred to the Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey and was ultimately dismissed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals because the appellate court found that LTL—"a company created to file for bankruptcy"—was not in any financial distress. In re LTL Mgmt., LLC, 64 F.4th 84, 110 (3d Cir. 2023).

Lawletter Vol. 49 No. 4

Anne Hemenway—Senior Attorney

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/SECOND AMENDMENT: United States Supreme Court Allows Statutory Ban on Possession of Firearms by Persons Subject to Domestic Violence Restraining Order

      In United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889, 219 L. Ed. 2d 351 (2024), the United States Supreme Court, in an unusual nearly unanimous 8-1 decision, upheld a 1994 federal criminal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), against a challenge that the law violated the Second Amendment. The statute bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violence restraining order or any order that restrains a person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of injury.

            The statute was originally challenged by Rahimi as violating the Second Amendment, although he conceded that the restraining order against him satisfied the statutory criteria for banning him from possessing a firearm. The federal district court denied Rahimi's motion to dismiss the indictment for possessing a firearm in violation of Section 922(g)(8) on Second Amendment grounds. On appeal, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022). In light of that ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the indictment should be dismissed because Section 922(g)(8) does not fit within the “Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.” United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443, 461 (5th Cir. 2023).

The Lawletter Vol. 49 No. 3

Anne Hemenway, Senior Attorney

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/SECOND AMENDMENT:  United States Supreme Court Allows Statutory Ban on Possession of Firearms by Persons Subject to Domestic Violence Restraining Order

          In United States v. Rahimi, 144 S. Ct. 1889, 219 L. Ed. 2d 351 (2024), the United States Supreme Court, in an unusual nearly unanimous 8-1 decision, upheld a 1994 federal criminal law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), against a challenge that the law violated the Second Amendment. The statute bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violence restraining order or any order that restrains a person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such partner or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of injury.

      The statute was originally challenged by Rahimi as violating the Second Amendment, although he conceded that the restraining order against him satisfied the statutory criteria for banning him from possessing a firearm. The federal district court denied Rahimi's motion to dismiss the indictment for possessing a firearm in violation of Section 922(g)(8) on Second Amendment grounds. On appeal, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 213 L. Ed. 2d 387 (2022). In light of that ruling, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the indictment should be dismissed because Section 922(g)(8) does not fit within the “Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.” United States v. Rahimi, 61 F.4th 443, 461 (5th Cir. 2023).

Lawletter Vol 49 No. 2

Anne Hemenway—Senior Attorney

            On March 15, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided a pair of cases from Michigan and California on the issue of whether a public official violates the First Amendment by blocking individuals from the public official's personal social media page. In the Michigan case, Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187, 144 S. Ct. 756, 218 L. Ed. 2d 121 (2024), Kevin Lindke, a private citizen argued that James R. Freed, the unelected city manager of Port Huron, Michigan, violated his free speech rights when the unelected official blocked the complaining citizen from his personal Facebook page. In the California case, O'Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, 601 U.S. 205, 144 S. Ct. 717, 218 L. Ed. 2d 138 (2024), two elected school board members blocked from their social media pages the parents who criticized the board of trustees. In both cases, the blocked citizens were outraged that they were barred from the private internet sites.

Lawletter No. 48 Vol. 4

ELECTION LAW:  Federal District Court Judge Orders Georgia Lawmakers to RedrawCongressional Map for the 2024 Election

Anne Hemenway, Senior Attorney

        On October 26, 2023, in three cases similar to the U.S. Supreme Court decision rejecting Alabama's congressional map, the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Alpha Phi Alpha Fraternity, Inc. v. Brad Raffensperger, No. 1:21-CV-05337-SCJ, Pendergrass v. Brad Raffensperger, No. 1:21-CV-05339-SCJ, and Grant v. Brad Raffensperger, No. 1:22-CV-00122-SCJ, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192080 (N.D. Ga. Oct. 26, 2023), wrote a consolidated 516-page Opinion and Memorandum of Decision also rejecting Georgia lawmakers' congressional maps. In a state where the recent population growth has been almost entirely made up of minority residents, the state's congressional and legislative maps presented to the court did not add more majority-Black districts. Accordingly, the federal court concluded that despite the fact that Black voters have more opportunities, "the political process is not equally open to Black voters." Further, the court concluded that the current U.S. congressional maps presented to the court dilute and diminish the Black population's voting power in the Atlanta area.

The Lawletter Vol. 48 No. 1

Anne Hemenway, Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group, Inc.

        It is not uncommon for a debtor who filed a Chapter 11 or 13 bankruptcy case to die or become incapacitated during the life of the bankruptcy proceeding. Under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1016:

If a reorganization, family farmer's debt adjustment, or individual's debt adjustment case is pending under chapter 11, chapter 12, or chapter 13, the case may be dismissed; or if further administration is possible and in the best interest of the parties, the case may proceed and be concluded in the same manner, so far as possible, as though the death or incompetency had not occurred.

            Interestingly, the rule is different where the debtor filed under Chapter 7. The death or incompetency of the debtor "shall not abate a liquidation case under chapter 7 of the Code." This is because the death of the debtor has no practical effect on the administration of a Chapter 7 which is in the hands of the Chapter 7 Trustee. See Hawkins v. Eads, 135 B.R. 380 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1991).

The Lawletter Vol 46 No 6

Anne Hemenway—Senior Attorney, National Legal Research Group

            Facing tens of thousands of claims against Johnson & Johnson's ("J&J's") baby powder and other talc products, alleging that the baby powder contains asbestos and causes cancer, J&J put the talc claims into a separate entity called LTL Management LLC, which then filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in mid-October 2021 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina. In re LTL Mgmt., LLC, No. 21-30589 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Oct. 14, 2021). J&J itself is not part of the bankruptcy filing.

            The pharmaceutical company's corporate shuffling and bankruptcy maneuver is known as a "Texas two-step" bankruptcy, whereby J&J split its business through a divisional merger under Texas law and created a new entity to carry the talc liabilities. The Texas law allowed J&J to avoid accountability for the over 40,000 talc powder claims. The State's divisive merger statute, Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 1.002(55)(A), allows a company to divide into two separate entities. Because a divisive merger is not treated as an assignment of assets or liabilities, it is used as a strategic alternative to a traditional spin off or asset sale.