The Iqbal decision, handed down by the Supreme Court last term, makes it harder for plaintiffs to defeat defendants' motions to dismiss. For that reason, broadly speaking, defense lawyers love the Iqbal decision, and plaintiffs' lawyers hate it.

That said, it might be unwise for lawyers of any stripe to get too used to it. Three Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce a bill next week that would override it. Click here for the story, from the Dow Jones Newswires' Kristina Peterson. Reps John Conyers (D., Mich.), Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) (pictured), and Henry Johnson (D., Ga.) are currently working on a bill that effectively undo the portion of the ruling that deals with pleading standards.

For now, some background, pulled from this post from last month: In the ruling, the court ruled 5-4 that a Pakistani Muslim who was arrested after the Sept. 11 attacks was barred from suing U.S. officials for abuses he says he suffered in a Brooklyn detention center.

But the reach of the decision went beyond a detainee's right to sue. In the opinion, the court clarified a key component of civil procedure, ruling that plaintiffs must include in their initial pleadings substantial, not "threadbare," factual assertions that give "facial plausibility" to their claims. The pronouncement represented a major shift from the earlier rule, which required only a simple statement of the case against the defendant.

And, according to a recent story from the NLJ's Tony Mauro, it's had a real impact. Writes Mauro: