Want to get this daily news briefing by email? Here's the sign-up.

WHAT WE'RE WATCHING

PARTY CRASHERS - It's common for judges appointed by presidents of the same party to disagree, but, as Law.com's Avalon Zoppo reports, some recent dissents have been infused with a little extra spiciness between Trump-appointed judges and their GOP colleagues. So what's behind these rifts? Legal experts and attorneys offered multiple potential explanations, including differing textual interpretations in individual cases and judges' changing values over time. But they've also pointed to an overall more ideologically driven judicial selection process under former President Trump as compared to, say, Reagan-era picks. For example, Trump, more so than Reagan, picked many judges with ties to the conservative legal group the Federalist Society, explained William & Mary Law School professor Neal Devins  The group was founded in 1982, a year after Reagan took office. "[Reagan judges] were probably mellower to start with and are even mellower having aged in the process. Then you have these whippersnappers, these young Trump judges who are out to make a mark and came to the court through this more centralized mechanism," Devins said. "So it's not shocking that when Trump judges start … that they would be particularly energized to pursue legal policy objectives, and to show even other Republican judges that they speak the truth, because they're just more ideological in nature and they're younger."

MASK MAYHEM - Speaking of Trump-appointed judges making waves, this week's decision by U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the Middle District of Florida to strike down the Biden administration's public transit mask mandate has divided court watchers. As Law.com's Cedra Mayfield reports, some lawyers see the lifted mandate as an appropriate remedy to the government's constitutional overreach, but others consider it a political power not vested in the public's best interest. Regardless, a wave of litigation appears imminent. Several lawyers took to Twitter following the ruling to advocate for the filing of class actions against airlines that ended their mask mandates mid-flight.  Some attorneys, like Massachusetts lawyer Emily Galvin-Almanza, questioned the speed with which the policy change took effect, and the impact its swift implementation could have on unsuspecting customers. "It's really weird to me that no one had their lawyers / marketing / customer service department think about the best way to roll this out to customers, many of whom made decisions in reliance on mask policy," Galvin-Almanza tweeted. "Agree or disagree w the outcome, it's weird to go this fast in business."

WHO GOT THE WORK?℠ - Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan partners Kevin P.B. Johnson, Matthew D. Robson, Isaac Nesser and Sandra L. Haberny have stepped in to represent Genevant Sciences GmbH in a patent lawsuit related to materials used in Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine. The suit was filed March 18 in New York Southern District Court by Acuitas Therapeutics Inc., which licenses a lipid nanoparticle for use in the Pfizer vaccine. Acuitas, represented by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, seeks a court order that its techniques do not infringe patents owned by Arbutus Biopharma Corp. and licensed to Genevant. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos, is 1:22-cv-02229, Acuitas Therapeutics Inc. v. Genevant Sciences GmbH et al. >>Read the complaint on Law.com Radar and check out the most recent edition of Law.com's Who Got the Work?℠ column to find out which law firms and lawyers are being brought in to handle key cases and close major deals for their clients.