E. Jon A. Gryskiewicz

U.S. government surveillance has repeatedly been in the news, highlighting the larger U.S. surveillance system of foreigners and the incidental gathering of Americans’ communications.  The U.S. government’s surveillance capabilities and long-standing policies have sparked concern and reaction from the European Union (“EU”), and now, in response to a European court ruling, European partners are reaching out to their U.S. counterparts asking to amend existing contracts to strengthen or install protections concerning European data.  How U.S. entities respond to such requests can determine whether their commercial relationships continue uninterrupted and potentially give them a leg up against the competition.

In the dying days of his administration, President Trump has moved to smash the civil service.  Through Executive Order 13957 (“EO 13957” or the “EO”), the President aims to carve out an entire new class of civil servants, sheering them from long-standing federal protections designed to create a professional, apolitical federal workforce.  Lewis Baach Kaufmann Middlemiss is investigating the scope of the Executive Order and possible remedies available to affected civil servants.

On Nov. 19, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear oral argument in AstraZeneca UK Ltd. v. Atchley, a case which is likely to have a significant impact on actions brought under the Anti-Terrorism Act and Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act.

In a recent wide-sweeping decision, Twitter v. Taamneh, the United States Supreme Court dramatically reshaped liability under the 2016 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (“JASTA”), which imposes secondary, civil liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (“ATA”) on persons who aid and abet or conspire to commit acts of international terrorism.

The United States Supreme Court concluded in ZF Automotive US, Inc. v. Luxshare, Ltd. that federal district courts cannot order discovery for use in a private foreign arbitration via 18 U.S.C. § 1782—a statute that permits litigants to seek discovery in federal court for “use in a proceeding in a foreign or international tribunal.”  The unanimous decision narrows a useful discovery tool by prohibiting parties in or contemplating private, foreign arbitration from obtaining discovery through federal courts for use in that arbitration.

The U.S. government’s surveillance capabilities and long-standing policies have sparked concern and reaction from the European Union (“EU”), and now, in response to a European court ruling, European partners are reaching out to their U.S. counterparts asking to amend existing contracts to strengthen or install protections concerning European data.  How U.S. entities respond to such requests can determine whether their commercial relationships continue uninterrupted and potentially give them a leg up against the competition.