John is joined by Mark Wu, Henry L. Stimson Professor at Harvard Law School. They discuss the rapidly evolving legal and policy landscape surrounding U.S. tariffs following the Supreme Court’s decision invalidating the President’s reliance on emergency economic powers to impose broad tariffs. That ruling removed a significant set of tariffs but did not eliminate the overall tariff regime. Instead, the administration quickly pivoted to alternative statutory authorities, particularly Section 122, which permits temporary tariffs for up to 150 days, as well as longer-term mechanisms such as Section 301 and Section 232 investigations. These alternative mechanisms allow the executive branch to impose targeted tariffs based on findings related to unfair trade practices or national security concerns, with less immediate need for congressional approval.

As a result, the tariff environment has shifted from sweeping, across-the-board measures to a more fragmented and dynamic system, requiring analysis on a country-by-country and product-by-product basis. Ongoing investigations into issues such as excess capacity and forced labor are likely to produce additional tariffs that may persist longer than the temporary measures currently in place. Meanwhile, legal challenges continue, including lawsuits by states arguing that the executive branch has exceeded delegated authority and violated statutory constraints. These challenges may be overtaken by the expiration of temporary tariffs and the emergence of new ones.

One major issue involves refunds for tariffs previously collected under the invalidated emergency economic powers authority. Courts have indicated that refunds are warranted and administratively feasible, even at large scale, although timing remains uncertain due to potential appeals and implementation delays. Importers’ entitlement to refunds from the government does not depend on whether they passed tariff costs on to customers, as the focus is on the legality of the government’s action rather than downstream economic effects. Downstream purchasers who claim that invalidated tariffs were passed on to them must pursue contractual remedies rather than recovery from the government.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Christopher D. Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. They discuss a proprietary litigation intelligence system developed inside Quinn Emanuel — built from a practicing litigator's perspective and designed to give case teams a decisive advantage from day one.

The system, known internally as a "kerchbench," works by taking a case team's documents, filings, and materials and distilling them into a structured knowledge base that mirrors how experienced litigators understand and manage cases — organized around the chronology of events, key actors, claims and defenses, and critical evidence. The result is an AI that already understands the case before anyone asks it a question, so every interaction starts from genuine case knowledge rather than from scratch.

By progressively building out the system's understanding as a matter develops, the AI functions as a true thought partner rather than a passive tool. Lawyers can refine strategies, identify gaps in their knowledge, and surface non-obvious connections across the record. The system doesn't just answer questions about what is known — it serves as a thought partner, flagging what additional information the team may need and what the lawyer may be overlooking.

One key innovation is the creation of structured workflows and reusable "skills" that break complex legal tasks into component steps — issue identification, organization, drafting, and refinement. These routines accelerate the production of high-quality work while preserving lawyer oversight at every stage. The system also supports early case assessment: a fast-turnaround engagement that synthesizes initial case materials into a structured snapshot of claims and defenses, key risks, and strategic priorities — giving partners a clear picture of a case within 48 hours.

The result is a shift in legal work from labor-intensive context assembly toward higher-value analytical thinking. By providing relevant case information on demand and reducing the cognitive burden of tracking specific evidence across a large record, the system enhances both the speed and quality of legal reasoning. This is not merely an efficiency gain — it is a meaningful improvement in lawyers' ability to think, strategize, and advocate effectively in complex litigation.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Matthew Borden, partner and co-founder of BraunHagey & Borden, and Kory DeClark, partner at BraunHagey & Borden. They discuss litigation challenging federal law enforcement responses to protests, focusing on the Dickinson case in Portland, Oregon, that resulted in an injunction restricting how government agents may use force against demonstrators. The case arose from a series of protests against immigration enforcement policies. The plaintiffs alleged a pattern of excessive and indiscriminate force by federal agents at these protests that chilled lawful First Amendment activity. The legal team assembled extensive evidence, including 62 sworn declarations and video footage, documenting incidents such as using pepper spray on an 82-year-old woman and firing tear gas and projectiles at peaceful protesters.

The effort to gather evidence was intense, involving rapid coordination among attorneys, staff, and volunteers to identify witnesses, collect recordings, and conduct expedited discovery in only 28 days. The discovery included depositions of federal personnel and testimony from experts and local law enforcement officials, who contrasted federal tactics with established crowd-control practices. The evidence demonstrated a broad pattern amounting to an informal policy inconsistent with constitutional protections rather than a series of isolated incidents. One powerful piece of evidence, in addition to the limited training that is much inferior to what police receive, was that the government conducted no investigations of and imposed no disciplinary measures on the officers involved in these incidents.

At the preliminary injunction hearing, the government largely relied on general assertions that protests were dangerous and that restrictions on force would compromise officer safety, while offering no direct rebuttal to specific incidents. In contrast, the plaintiffs emphasized that targeted, proportional policing methods were available and commonly used by trained local agencies, and that indiscriminate tactics such as tear gas often escalated tensions rather than restoring order.

The resulting injunction limits the use of force to situations involving imminent threats and active resistance. It restricts the deployment of crowd-control weapons against passive or non-threatening individuals. These constraints align with existing use-of-force standards and have not been shown to endanger officers when implemented. The government has appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit.

Finally, they discuss BraunHagey & Borden’s “impact” practice of focusing almost 20% of its work on pro bono activities on cases that could have the maximum impact for a broad group of people or change the law to benefit a large group of people.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi