Photo of Ryan VanOver

VanOver focuses his practice on financial services litigation, but his services are available for all general litigation matters. His legal interests include entertainment, media, and sports law, copyright, biometrics, product liability, labor and employment, aviation and aerospace, government policies, and drone law.

On February 24, the Supreme Court released its unanimous decision in Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist, affirming the Fifth Circuit’s decision to vacate the post-trial final judgment because the district court’s erroneous dismissal of a nondiverse defendant based on improper joinder resulted in a jurisdictional defect that existed at the time of removal, which was not cured prior to final judgment.

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Rules Post-Trial Final Judgment Must Be Vacated if Jurisdictional Defect Lingers Through Judgment

On March 31, the Supreme Court released its 8-1 decision in Chiles v. Salazar, holding that Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), C.R.S. §§ 12-245-101, 12-245-202, unconstitutionally regulates speech as applied to the Petitioner. The narrow ruling offers some clarification of the rules that govern speech incidental to the conduct of regulated professionals.

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Limits Colorado’s Conversion Therapy Ban

In Little v. Hecox, the Supreme Court is considering whether Idaho’s Fairness in Women’s Sports Act violates the Equal Protection Clause by barring transgender women and girls from participating on female-designated sports teams in public schools. The case, argued alongside West Virginia v. B.P.J., places before the Court a closely watched dispute at the intersection of equal protection doctrine, sex-based classifications, and athletic regulation.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Whether Idaho’s Ban on Transgender Participation in Women’s Sports Violates Equal Protection

In Hain Celestial Group, Inc. v. Palmquist (No. 24-724), the Supreme Court will determine (1) whether a district court’s judgment resolving litigation between completely diverse parties must later be vacated for lack of subject matter jurisdiction if an appellate court subsequently concludes that, at the time the case was removed from state court, the case did not have complete diversity jurisdiction, and (2) whether a plaintiff may block diversity jurisdiction by updating the complaint after removal to include a valid claim against a nondiverse defendant.

Continue Reading Supreme Court Considers Whether “Final” Judgment Really Means “Final”

On October 7, 2025, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that tests the extent of First Amendment protections for regulated professionals. After a divided Tenth Circuit panel rejected a challenge to Colorado’s so-called Minor Conversion Therapy Law (MCTL), C.R.S. §§ 12-245-101, 12-245-202, the Court is now positioned to decide “whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause.”

Continue Reading Supreme Court Hears First Amendment Challenge to Colorado Conversion Therapy Ban

In a unanimous and notable decision, the Supreme Court in BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman reaffirmed the strict threshold imposed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6), holding that a party may not evade its “extraordinary circumstances” requirement simply by seeking to amend a complaint post-judgment. Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas rejected the Second Circuit’s attempt to harmonize Rule 60’s demand for finality with Rule 15(a)’s liberal amendment standard.

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Rule 60(b)’s High Bar to Reopen Final Judgments

In a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court held in consolidated cases Oklahoma v. EPA and PacifiCorp v. EPA that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s disapprovals of 21 individual state implementation plans (SIPs) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) are “locally or regionally applicable” actions, and, as such, must be challenged in their respective regional circuit courts—even when the EPA publishes them in a single, consolidated Federal Register notice.

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Clarifies Venue for Environmental Challenges

The Supreme Court held in Drug Administration v. R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. that retailers of e-cigarette products are “persons adversely affected” by an FDA denial order under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA), and therefore have standing to seek judicial review.

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Affirms Retailers’ Right To Judicial Review Under The Tobacco Control Act

If you get what you paid for, can you still cry fraud? The Supreme Court answered that question in Kousisis v. United States, unanimously holding that the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343, does not require a scheme to cause financial loss. Writing for the Court, Justice Barrett affirmed that intent to harm is not a necessary element of wire fraud, thereby significantly expanding the statute’s reach.  

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Unanimously Expands Scope of Wire Fraud

On June 5, 2025, in an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court dismissed Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis as improvidently granted—despite having already granted certiorari and heard oral argument in the case on April 29, 2025. The Court did not explain its reasoning or disclose the vote breakdown. However, Justice Kavanaugh’s lone, solo dissent sheds light on the possible rationale behind the dismissal and defends the importance of the question presented.

Continue Reading Decision Alert: Supreme Court Dismisses Labcorp v. Davis as Improvidently Granted