Stories in this week's episode:

The troubling implications of the Supreme Court's transgender athlete decision

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley School of Law, argues the Supreme Court's ruling in West Virginia v. B.P.J. weakens intermediate scrutiny by accepting broad generalizations rather than requiring an individualized showing of harm. Chemerinsky ties the 6-3 decision to a broader pattern in which the Court has repeatedly declined to protect transgender individuals from discrimination.

The limits of inadvertent disclosure

Sanford Jay Rosen and Ernest Galvan, of Rosen Bien Galvan and Grunfeld LLP, break down the Fourth District's ruling in Popa v. Simpson, arguing that stretching Rico v. Mitsubishi Motors Corp. to disqualify counsel over discoverable material undermines a trial's basic function as a search for the truth. They also lay out guidance on responding to inadvertent disclosures.

Remote workers, noncompetes and the new choice-of-law battlefield

David S. Cunningham III, a retired judge and neutral at JAMS, examines how remote work has turned noncompete enforcement into a choice-of-law problem, since an employee's residence, work location and customer base can each point to a different state's rules. Cunningham proposes early mediation and arbitration to resolve these disputes — without a multi-jurisdictional legal battle.