False Claims Act Insights - The Mathematics of Nuclear FCA Verdicts
Podcast - Diamond Alternative Energy, LLC v. EPA: The Intersection of Constitutional and Environmental Law
Solicitors General Insights: The Tale of Two Washingtons — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 65 -The Power of Interpretation: Constitutional Meaning in the Modern World
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 64 - Cages We Built: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America
Solicitors General Insights: The Legal Frontlines in Iowa and Indiana — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Ampliación del fuero de paternidad
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Impact of the Election on the FTC
Solicitors General Insights: A Deep Dive With Mississippi and Tennessee Solicitors General — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Everything You Want to Know About the CFPB as Things Stand Today, and Lots More - Part 2
Podcast - FTC Commissioner Dismissals: Background and Implications
FCPA Compliance Report: Death of CTA
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prof. Hal Scott Doubles Down on His Argument That CFPB is Unlawfully Funded Because of Combined Losses at Federal Reserve Banks
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 55 - The Power of the Presidential Pardon: Traditions and Turning Points
False Claims Act Insights - Are the FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional? One Federal Judge Says “Yes"
In That Case: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
#WorkforceWednesday® - SpaceX Victory: Court Questions NLRB's Constitutional Authority - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: Can FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Survive Without Chevron Deference? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
On July 30, 2025, a divided California Court of Appeal issued its long-awaited opinion in Patz v. City of San Diego, affirming the trial court’s judgment that the City’s tiered residential water rates violated Proposition 218...more
“Defendants [California card rooms] operate, participate in, and facilitate illegal gambling,” according to a complaint filed on April 1, 2025, by the Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians (the Rincon Band) and the Santa Ynez Band...more
On April 2, 2025, California’s Fifth Appellate District issued a decision in Bring Back the Kern v. City of Bakersfield (April 2, 2025, F087487) (2025 WL 98443). The Court held the “self-executing” reasonableness requirement...more
Several cities in California successfully petitioned for a writ of mandate seeking the invalidation of California Senate Bill 9 (the HOME Act)....more
Lawmakers introduce tools to ease pressure from SGMA and infrastructure demands on public agency revenue powers - Adopted in 1996, Proposition 218 (and later Proposition 26 in 2010) amended the California Constitution to...more
Article IV, Section 9 of the California Constitution provides "A statute shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title". This rather simple notion, absent from the United States Constitution, dates...more
On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted,...more
The California State Bar Act imposes a duty on attorneys to "support the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this state". Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(a). Many California legislators are members of the...more
Last month, on May 13, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis ruled that SB 826, which requires publicly held California corporations with a principal executive office in California to follow gender...more
California courts have now struck down the second of the state’s two board diversity laws as unconstitutional. The recent decision affects California's gender diversity requirement for certain boards of directors. In April,...more
In Crest v. Padilla, No. 19STCV27561, 2022 WL 1565613 (Cal. Super. May 13, 2022), the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles (Duffy-Lewis, J.) issued a decision following a bench trial finding that Senate...more
In a little over a month’s time, the Superior Court of California (the “Superior Court”) struck down both AB 979 and SB 826, California’s two board diversity statutes. SB 826 required that a public company whose principal...more
Last Friday, the Los Angeles Superior Court in Crest et al. v. Padilla (“Crest”) held that Senate Bill 826 (“SB 826”), also known as the “Women on Boards” law, is unconstitutional. The lawsuit challenging the law was brought...more
On May 13, the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, issued a verdict following a bench trial that effectively struck down SB 826, a California statute requiring the boards of public corporations based in the...more
On April 1, 2022, a Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled that California Assembly Bill 979—a bill designed to increase diversity and improve the persistently low number of underrepresented groups on corporate...more
Earlier this month, a Los Angeles County Superior Court order put the brakes on one of California’s much contested board diversity requirements, a decision certain to reverberate among the business community and efforts to...more
On April 1, 2022, a Los Angeles County judge ruled that AB 979, which requires publicly held corporations with a principal executive office in California to have at least one member of the Board of Directors from an...more
As discussed in our previous blog, on April 1, 2022, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge, Terry Green, granted summary judgment in favor of individuals represented by D.C.-based nonprofit Judicial Watch, declaring Assembly Bill...more
On April 1, 2022, Judge Terry Green of the Los Angeles Superior Court struck down California’s AB 979, which required publicly held companies based in California to have at least one board director from an “underrepresented...more
A California court invalidated a state law requiring that boards of directors of public companies based in California include members from under-represented groups, including persons of several races and ethnic groups and...more