The six most important Supreme Court decisions of 2016

1. United States v. Texas, the end of Obama’s immigration reform plans

The President Obama’s immigration reform ended not with a bang, but a whimper. A deadlocked, eight-justice Supreme Court affirmed a Fifth Circuit ruling halting Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents plan, or DAPA, which sought to create a path towards legal status for millions of immigrants. With the election of Donald Trump months later, the future for such immigrants has become increasingly uncertain.

2. Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, affirmative action in college admissions

In Fisher, which is technically Fisher II, the Supreme Court ruled that the University of Texas’s consideration of race, as part of a holistic admissions process, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The use of race in public university admissions has had a tenuous future in the Court almost since it was first endorsed in 1978 and many thought that Fisher could deal such race-conscious admissions their final blow.

3. Welch v. United States, limits to 3-strikes laws

In Welch, the Supreme Court extended its ruling in Johnson v. United States, allowing it to be applied to those convicted before Johnson was decided. In Johnson, the Court held that the federal three strikes law’s residual clause was unconstitutionally vague. That opened up thousands of sentences to challenge and Welch quickly became the most cited case of the Court’s last term.

4. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, striking down restrictions on abortion providers

In a roundabout attempt to limit abortion, the Texas legislature adopted some of the strictest abortion regulations in the country — but these regulations were targeted not at women seeking abortion services, but the clinics providing them, effectively shutting down most clinics in the state. Those restrictions were struck down in Whole Woman’s Health, as the Supreme Court ruled that abortion provider regulations must be based on convincing medical evidence and cannot unduly burden a woman’s right to abortion.

5. Samsung Electronics v. Apple, design patents

In latest battle in the long running patent war between Samsung and Apple, the Supreme Court addressed design patents for the first time in decades. On the same day that it decided Salman, the Supreme Court ruled that Samsung’s infringement of Apple’s design patents on its smartphones did not necessarily require the company to turn over all profits from those phones. Rather, damages could be limited to the profits attributable to infringing parts.

The ruling, of course, is not revolutionary. It’s certainly no “one man, one vote.” But though utility patents significantly outnumber design patents, design patents are quicker to obtain and are a growing source of IP litigation. The Court’s unanimous decision in Samsung limits the windfalls successful design patent litigation might bring, though it still leaves plenty of issues for lower courts to work through.

4. Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, striking down restrictions on abortion providers

It’s somewhat unnatural to look at Supreme Court cases by calendar year. The Court, after all, organizes itself around terms that stretch from October of one year to June of the next, with most of the major decisions coming out in June. That means that almost all of this year’s most impactful opinions come from last term.

But, there are a few recently decided cases that are worthy of inclusion. Salman tops that list. Decided in early December, this insider trading case upheld the presumption of a benefit when an insider gives confidential information to a family member who then trades on it. The ruling undoes a recent Second Circuit opinion that threatened to upend the so-called “friends and family” rule and which could have significantly limited insider trading prosecutions.

For many global industries, the world is going to be a very different place tomorrow than it is today, including for the legal industry. And while I don’t believe it’s going to be the extinction of all lawyers, legal librarians, and chief information officers, neither is it going to look like 2007 any time soon.

New legal ecosystem

A new legal ecosystem has emerged with new players and new answers that include pure-play technology, as well as technology-enabled legal services, to meet client and institutional demands for more efficient, cost-effective solutions. Clients are asking to be charged for the value of the matter, pushing for unbundled services so they get what they want. This leaves room for disruption and innovation and puts pressure on the law firm business model.

There is an opportunity to bridge the client interest and law firm interest with new technologies like Allegory Law, a software tool that integrates critical case information and provides clients with more effective data management. And Seyfarth Shaw’s Seyfarth Lean, a value-driven client service model that improves process with project management and tailored technology solutions. Meanwhile, BakerHostetler became the first BigLaw firm to engage ROSS, an “A.I. lawyer that helps lawyers research faster and focus on clients.”

Serving clients is the whole point of the profession, and if we can help lawyers serve clients better with innovative technologies and valuable ideas, then we’re all in a better position.

Increased cross-boundary collaboration

Law firms, in-house counsel, and third-party partners including alternative legal services providers are working together to disrupt the traditional client/law firm model. General counsel aren’t looking to do away with their law firms – they need them. Today, there is more regulation and more risk and they need the know-how of lawyers to overcome these challenges.

One example of this is Avis budget group’s rigorous Request for Proposal process to compile its panel of law firms. They went from 700 law firms to an “all star team” of seven fixed-price law firms globally who would work together. The result is a successful collaboration for both Avis and the panel law firms.

Or look at Thomson Reuters own partnership with Clifford Chance. This collaboration helps global financial institutions tackle their most pressing regulatory obligations relating to margin rules for uncleared, over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives in a timely, efficient and more cost-effective manner.