Insights

Our new LearningLab: On-Demand Hub offers a growing library of continuing legal education (CLE) and business-focused legal insights you can now access anytime, anywhere.

Share on Twitter Share by Email Share Back to top  Foley again proudly continues its longstanding sponsorship of the American Telemedicine Association and ATA Nexus. ATA Nexus 2026 unites leaders from across the digital health ecosystem to explore the future of care delivery while offering deep industry insights, with the theme of Flip The Switch: Igniting Scaled Digital Health.

Foley partner Lisa Noller, Chair of the Firm’s Litigation Department, will be speaking at the American Bar Association’s Qui Tam & Civil False Claims and Healthcare Fraud Institute in Washington, D.C. from May 27-28.

The Trump Administration's new tariff initiatives are reshaping the importing environment in ways that extend far beyond the tariff rates themselves. Increased duties are driving higher customs bond requirements, new executive actions are signaling a more aggressive enforcement posture, and importers are facing growing pressure to ensure that their compliance programs can withstand heightened scrutiny.

For months, the U.S. Government has signaled it would challenge the Court of International Trade’s (CIT) authority to require refunds of IEEPA tariff payments for “finally liquidated” entries (those more than 90 days after liquidation). That challenge has now arrived. In recent CIT filings and in its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the Government has argued that the CIT cannot order the return of finally liquidated IEEPA tariff payments, except for plaintiffs that have filed protective actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i).

For much of the past year, the principal focus of the IEEPA tariff litigation has been whether the tariffs were lawful and whether importers would ultimately be entitled to refunds. Following the Supreme Court's February 2026 decision invalidating the tariffs and the subsequent proceedings before the Court of International Trade, those questions have largely been answered. The focus has increasingly shifted from whether refunds should be paid to how those refunds will be processed, administered, and distributed.

In this episode, Jana Kolarik, a partner in Foley’s Health Care Practice Group, and Angie Caldwell, principal and CFO of PYA, continue their discussion on the importance of work relative value units (wRVUs) and fair market value (FMV) under the Stark Law and what this can mean for how health care organizations pay their physicians.

This episode features a conversation with Alexis Juergens. Alexis is a senior counsel in Foley’s Salt Lake City office and chair of the firm's associates committee. In this discussion, Alexis reflects on life growing-up in a military family, including a number of moves, before settling in Salt Lake City as a child.

This episode features a conversation with René Jovel, Assistant General Counsel at Versiti Blood Health, Inc. In this discussion, René reflects on growing up in Los Angeles, California, attending Northwestern University for undergrad and Marquette University School of Law.

Notices from government funding agencies about noncompliance with iEdison reporting obligations should be taken seriously — failure to comply can put patent ownership at risk. However, a good-faith effort to remediate reporting deficiencies is likely to resolve the situation.

On June 2, 2026, the White House issued a new Executive Order titled “Promoting Advanced Artificial Intelligence Innovation and Security.” The order arrives at a moment of significant public attention to the capabilities of next-generation AI systems and the cybersecurity risks they may present.

A newly published California decision, AVL Test Systems, Inc. v. Hensel Phelps Construction Co. (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 28, 2026), is worth close attention for contractors, specialty trades, equipment suppliers, and anyone operating in the gray area between “supplying equipment” and “performing construction.”