Quick Guide to Administrative Hearings
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
Notorious: The RBG Podcast - Episode 11: Three Cheers for Beer: A Discussion of Craig v. Boren
The M&A Word of the Day® from the Book of Jargon® – Global Mergers & Acquisitions Is Revlon Doctrine
Konczal: Dodd-Frank Reforms Get Roughed Up in Court
Within this term, the US Supreme Court’s major environmental and administrative focus was on statutory text in its environmental and administrative decisions....more
In this update, we cover the most impactful Supreme Court cases related to administrative law issues decided during the 2024-2025 term. The Supreme Court decided important administrative law cases falling into these general...more
On 29 May 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously declared that a “course correction” was needed for cases under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), holding that a law originally meant to be a procedural check to inform...more
Last week, EPA released its proposed “Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule”. The proposed rule would make a number of significant changes to the rule promulgated by EPA in 2020....more
My law firm colleague Allan Gates undertook a webinar presentation for the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (“NACWA”) titled: - Shaking Things Up – The Trump Administration, Regulatory Change, and...more
- U.S. High Court Asked to Review WV Justice's Role in Gas Royalties Case - "The U.S. Supreme Court is being asked to review West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Beth Walker's participation in a high-stakes natural gas...more
In addition to a January 20th Presidential Memorandum freezing all, not yet enacted, rules and sending them back to the agencies and Office of Management and Budget for reconsideration, and the utilization of the...more
It did not take long for the Hawkes Company to see the benefits of the Supreme Court’s May 31, 2016 decision granting the company the right to challenge in federal court the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (the Corps) approved...more
The United States Supreme Court has handed regulated parties their second win in four years concerning when they can take EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to court over wetlands permitting issues. In 2012, the...more
On May 31, 2016, the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. holding that approved judicial determinations as to the presence of wetlands issued by the...more
The United States Supreme Court handed landowners and developers a win this month in a unanimous decision allowing appeals to federal courts of Army Corps of Engineers determinations that a body of water or wetland is subject...more
On May 31, 2016, in a unanimous ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held in USACE v. Hawkes Co. that approved jurisdictional determinations (“JD”) are final actions which can be reviewed by the courts. Under the Clean Water Act a...more
On May 31, 2016, in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., the US Supreme Court unanimously held that a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Corps) approved jurisdictional determination (JD) is a final agency action...more
Environmental and Policy Focus - U.S. Supreme Court allows pre-permit challenges to approved jurisdictional determinations - Allen Matkins - May 31 - In a major new legal development for the Clean Water Act's...more
In a rebuke to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”), the United States Supreme Court unanimously held on May 31, 2016, in Corps v. Hawkes that jurisdictional determinations (“JDs”) under the Clean Water Act are...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Supreme Court decided that Army Corps’ jurisdictional determinations are judicially reviewable. This decision leaves open the question of whether other types of administrative decisions are immediately...more
Introduction - On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an important decision that continues a trend of judicial skepticism toward federal agency efforts to avoid judicial review of agency permitting and related...more
Decision allows landowners to challenge in court a US Army Corps of Engineers’ determination that a property is subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act....more
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on May 31, 2016, in United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc., No. 15-290, slip op., 578 U.S. ___ (2016) that approved jurisdictional determinations (JDs) issued by...more
Earlier this week, the US Supreme Court unanimously concluded that wetland determinations by the US Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) under the Clean Water Act constitute final agency action, meaning that landowners can...more
United States Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes Co., Inc. (5/31/16, No. 15-290) - In a widely anticipated decision in the wake of the Sackette v. EPA (132 S.Ct. 1367 (2012) decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that...more
On May 31, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States held that final determinations by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the presence or absence of “waters of the United States” can be appealed to the courts. The...more
An approved jurisdictional determination (“JD”) by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) can be appealed to Federal District Court according to a unanimous United States Supreme Court decision issued May 31, 2016, U.S....more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 31, 2016 that an approved jurisdictional determination issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under the Clean Water Act is a final agency action subject to judicial review. Hawkes Co.,...more
On May 31, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an eagerly anticipated decision that will benefit landowners and developers by authorizing immediate judicial review of Approved Jurisdictional Determinations (JDs) issued by the...more