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 May 28, the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled that the tariffs imposed by President Trump under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) were unlawful. In the case of V.O.S. v. United States, the court...more
Markets plunged earlier this year upon President Trump’s announcement of steep tariffs on imports to the U.S. from its trading partners, at rates varying from 10% to 125% depending on the country of the imported goods’...more
In 24 hours, two federal courts injected significant uncertainty into the viability of tariffs implemented by President Trump under the authority of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)....more
Several lawsuits challenging the legal validity of the tariff actions taken by President Trump since he took office on January 20, 2025, are in process of moving through the federal courts. They raise a variety of important...more
On May 28, 2025, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that President Trump lacks authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose his most sweeping tariffs against U.S. trading...more
At a critical stage of the Trump Administration’s aggressive global trade reset, a federal court has struck down a major statutory pylon of the White House trade strategy, potentially depriving President Trump of the most...more
On May 28, 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) invalidated President Trump's tariffs declared under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The next day, the U.S. Court of...more
On May 28, 2025, the United States Court of International Trade (CIT) ruled that International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 (IEEPA) does not give the President authority to impose unlimited tariffs on goods from...more