In this month’s episode, the crew tackles three notable decisions from the Seventh Circuit.

First up, Lara walks us through Lukaszczyk v. Cook County, a case involving a vaccine mandate, claims under Section 1983, and some strategic forfeitures that ultimately doomed the plaintiffs’ case.

Next, Kian digs into Union Pacific Railroad Co. v. Illinois Mine Subsidence Insurance Fund, a jurisdictional dispute involving long-ago mining activity, subsidence claims, and whether Union Pacific can shut the door on future lawsuits.

Finally, Mark unpacks Ollison v. Gossett, a case that hits on both qualified immunity and arbitration. Can a police officer avoid liability under Section 1983? And who gets to decide whether a party waived arbitration through litigation conduct — the court or the arbitrator?

Want to subscribe? Use the buttons in the player above, or plug this link into your favorite podcast app: https://feeds.buzzsprout.com/2178439.rss

The podcast returns with our monthly dose of Seventh Circuit opinions.

First, Lara tackles a complex insurance coverage case with wide-ranging implications in Starstone Insurance SE v City of Chicago. The case starts with an esoteric jurisdictional question: Is a “societas Europaea” more like a corporation or a partnership for purposes of diversity jurisdiction? It then analyzes whether the insurer needed to pay the defendant’s legal fees in the underlying lawsuit as part of the “ultimate net loss” covered by the policy.

Lara then addresses Griffith Foods v. AIG, another important insurance case where the court (in its own words) tackled an “important question of Illinois law about the meaning and scope of the pollution exclusion in standard form commercial general liability policies.” It resolved some of the issues in the case by sua sponte certifying issues to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Next, Kian discusses Garage Door Systems v. Blue Giant Corp., an international arbitration case. The case begins by addressing the enforceability of international arbitration agreements. While the Seventh Circuit has held that a district court generally cannot compel arbitration to occur outside its geographic district, courts can still compel arbitration under international agreements — so long as the signatories are citizens of contracting states under the New York Convention — regardless of where the arbitration is to be held.

On the merits, the Court found that a text box on an “Order Acknowledgment” form stating that “Terms and Conditions can be found” on the company’s website was sufficient to incorporate those terms by reference. If those terms include an arbitration provision, the parties can be bound to arbitrate.

Lastly, Mark discusses an objection to a class action settlement in the Broiler Chicken nationwide antitrust case. The Court examines when a class settlement may bind class members on claims that the class representative chose not to pursue in the suit.

This month’s podcast focuses on a trio of significant cases the Seventh Court handed down in mid-March within days of each other. Each of these cases has major ramifications for those in the Seventh Circuit.

First, Kian takes on the Court’s en banc opinion in St. Anthony Hospital v. Whitehorn, which addresses when Section 1983 may be used to enforce Medicaid requirements. The opinion reversed a panel opinion discussed on the podcast earlier this year. The case sets out key guideposts for all cases attempting to enforce federal statutes through Section 1983.

Second, Lara tackles an opinion addressing a fundamental question about the very nature of the U.S. Sentencing Commission. In USA v. Black, the Seventh Circuit determined that it did not need to defer to the Sentencing Commission’s interpretation of a provision in the First Step Act. Given the opinion’s analysis of both the rule set out in Loper Bright regarding deference to agencies and its thorough examination of the Sentencing Commission’s role, the Black case is a notable decision that might attract the Supreme Court’s attention.

Finally, Mark addresses Kilborn v. Amiridis, a First Amendment case challenging a law school’s decision to discipline a professor for what students found to be racially insensitive speech in an exam and during lectures. In yet another case that might be a candidate for certiorari, the Court set ground rules for when a professor’s free speech intersects with a university’s power to control what happens in the classroom.