Photo of Christopher Sakauye

Christopher Sakauye

Subscribe to Christopher Sakauye's Posts

Chris Sakauye represents insurers in complex coverage matters. He is adept at assessing and applying current and developing trends in case law across all 50 states. His experience on a nationally recognized trial team also gives him unique insight into the pressure points that bring difficult cases to quick and efficient resolutions.

Contact:Read more about Christopher Sakauye

On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral argument on three related emergency applications—Trump v. CASA, Inc.(No. 24A884); Trump v. Washington (No. 24A885); and Trump v. New Jersey (No. 24A886)—arising from President Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order restricting birthright citizenship. As Dykema previously reported, the case raises a critical legal question: whether a federal district court may issue nationwide, or “universal,” injunctions and, if so, under what legal framework such relief is justified.Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears Argument on Nationwide Scope of Injunction

The Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. Environmental Protection Agency (No. 24-7), a case examining whether economic harm stemming from market forces influenced by environmental regulation can support Article III standing. At issue is California’s authority to enforce its own emission standards, through a waiver granted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Section 209 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Standing to Challenge Clean Air Act Waiver Based on Market Impact

In a case with potentially sweeping implications for administrative and constitutional law, the Supreme Court is weighing whether the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) administration of universal telecommunications services violates the nondelegation doctrine—a principle that limits Congress’s ability to transfer legislative authority to agencies or private entities.Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Nondelegation Challenge to FCC’s Universal Service Program

On April 2, 2025, in a significant decision in FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision denying marketing authorization for certain e-cigarette products. The Court held that the FDA’s decision was not “arbitrary and capricious,” finding it consistent with the agency’s pre-decisional guidance and statutory mandate.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Upholds FDA Denial of E-Cigarette Products

The Supreme Court is set to resolve a critical issue in Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services—whether majority-group plaintiffs must meet a higher evidentiary burden to prove reverse discrimination under Title VII. The case challenges the long-standing requirement that plaintiffs from majority groups must establish “background circumstances” suggesting discrimination, a standard not applied to minority-group plaintiffs.Continue Reading Supreme Court To Rule on Additional Burden for Reverse Discrimination Claims

In Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., the Supreme Court will determine whether Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), which allows a district court to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding,” can be invoked when a party voluntarily dismisses its case.Continue Reading Supreme Court Examines Scope of Rule 60(b) Ability To Reopen Cases

On January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court reaffirmed a fundamental principle of civil litigation: the preponderance of the evidence standard remains the default unless explicitly altered by statute or constitutional mandate. In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Carrera, the Court clarified this standard for exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), resolving a dispute over the appropriate burden of proof for employers claiming such exemptions.Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Confirms Standard of Proof for FLSA Exemptions

On January 17, 2025, in the coordinated cases of TikTok v. Garland (No. 24-656) and Firebaugh v. Garland (No. 24-657), the Supreme Court unanimously upheld the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act. This bipartisan law bans TikTok in the United States if TikTok’s Chinese parent company, ByteDance, does not sell the popular web-based video-sharing platform to a non-Chinese owner. In an unsigned opinion, the Court rejected TikTok’s First Amendment challenge to the new divest-or-be-banned law and ruled that it was justified by the threat of China’s collecting sensitive data from TikTok’s U.S. users to influence U.S. public opinion by manipulating their personalized video feeds. Concurring only in the outcome reached by the Court, Justice Gorsuch wrote separately to observe that the cases had moved through the Supreme Court very quickly and that he did not have “the kind of certainty I would like to have about the arguments and record before us. All I can say is that, at this time and under these constraints, the problem appears real and the response to it not unconstitutional.”Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Upholds Conditional TikTok Ban, But TikTok Persists

In FDA v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC,the Supreme Court is set to decide whether the court of appeals erred in ruling that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) denial of authorization for new e-cigarette products was arbitrary and capricious.Continue Reading Supreme Court To Determine Limits of Arbitrary and Capricious Agency Action