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 No. 50 Vol. 3

Charlene Hicks—Senior Attorney

      Beginning with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in East River S.S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval, Inc., 476 U.S. 858, 106 S. Ct. 2295 (1986), courts nationwide have utilized the economic loss doctrine to preclude plaintiffs from obtaining a tort remedy for contract-based claims. In effect, a plaintiff cannot pursue a tort claim to recover purely economic losses.

The Lawletter No. 50 Vol. 3

Robert Westendorf—Research Attorney

      Marlean Ames, a heterosexual woman, was hired as an executive secretary by the Ohio Department of Youth Services in 2004 and was later promoted to program administrator. Ames v. Ohio Dep't of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. 303, 306, 145 S. Ct. 1540 (2025). In 2019, she applied for a newly created management position. Id. Although she was interviewed for the position, a lesbian woman was ultimately hired. Id. A few days after her interview, she was demoted from her program administrator position to her old secretary position. Id. The agency then hired a gay man for the now-vacant program administrator position. Id.

The Lawletter Vol. 50 No. 3

The Lawletter Vol. 50 No. 3

Brett R. Turner, Senior Attorney

              As I write this note, it is mid-October, there is a crisp cool snap in the air, and the college football season is in full swing. It is a good time to remember that in the United States of America, college football and college sports in general are very big business.

            A reminder of this point in the divorce context is Waldrip v. Waldrip, 2025 Ark. App. 29, 705 S.W.3d 8. The parties in that case were members of the Razorback Foundation, which provides financial support for athletics at the University of Arkansas. The Foundation raises money, in part, by granting donors the right to purchase desirable seating at University sporting events. Those who donate to the Foundation are given priority points, and those with higher amount of points get more priority in purchasing desirable seating.

The Lawletter Vol. 50 No. 2

Nadine Roddy—Senior Attorney

        The 401(k) plan is perhaps the most popular form of tax-advantaged savings and investment vehicle for retirement offered by American employers under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Many plans contain provisions requiring arbitration of all disputes arising from the plan, and some of these provisions limit the rights and remedies of plan participants bringing suits in arbitration. The Sixth Circuit recently declared invalid a 401(k) plan’s “individual arbitration provision” requiring a plan participant to bring suit in arbitration only in their individual capacity, and not in a representative, class, or collective capacity. The provision also limited a participant to seeking remedies for losses to their individual plan account, rather than to the plan itself. The case involved two plan participants who filed in federal district court a putative class action against plan fiduciaries on behalf of the plan, themselves, and all others similarly situated. They claimed breach of fiduciary duties and sought all losses accruing to the plan, disgorgement of all profits, and other injunctive relief. Parker v. Tenneco, Inc., 114 F.4th 786, 792 (6th Cir. 2024).

The Lawletter No. 50 Vol. 2

Lee Dunham—Senior Attorney 

     In the wake of the rise of online vacation rental platforms like Airbnb and VRBO, the modern trend in drafting restrictive covenants for planned communities or condominiums is to include a provision specifically addressing whether, and under what conditions, short-term rentals will be permitted. Older covenants, however, did not contemplate the widespread use of properties as short-term rentals, and typically contain only broad provisions restricting the properties to “residential use,” or limiting “commercial” or “business” use.

The Lawletter Vol. 50 No. 2

Amy Gore—Senior Attorney (agore@nlrg.com)

         Calling a fee payment “non-refundable” is no protection from an ethical violation. The Virginia Supreme Court’s recent decision in Swango v. Virginia State Bar ex rel. Second District, No. 241016, 2025 Va. LEXIS 43, at *1 (July 31, 2025), clarified the differences between a refundable retainer and a non-refundable consultation fees.

The Lawletter Vol 50 No. 2

Paul Ferrer—Senior Attorney

       The United States Supreme Court decided a crucial question concerning a federal court’s removal jurisdiction in Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger, 604 U.S. 22 (2025). If a complaint filed in a state court asserts a claim or claims under federal law, then the defendant may remove the case to the U.S. district court for the district and division embracing the place where the state action was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). And if the complaint also asserts a claim or claims under state law arising out of the same facts, then the federal court can exercise “supplemental jurisdiction” over those claims and adjudicate them too. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). But what happens, as the Supreme Court put the question in Royal Canin, “if, after removal, the plaintiff amends her complaint to delete all the federal-law claims, leaving nothing but state-law claims behind? May the federal court still adjudicate the now purely state-law suit?” 604 U.S. at 25.

The Lawletter Vol. 50 No. 1

Matthew T. McDavitt—Senior Attorney

       Under U.S. law, a testator drafting a Last Will and Testament must possess testamentary capacity for the document to be legally valid. Testamentary capacity generally requires that the testator understands the nature of their act, knows the extent of their property, and recognizes the natural objects of their bounty (typically family members or loved ones). However, even when these basic requirements are met, a will may still be invalidated if the testator suffered from an "insane delusion" that materially affected the disposition of their estate.