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
This week, I discuss with my colleague, Kelly N. Garson, a Senior Associate here at B&C and Regulatory Consultant for The Acta Group (Acta®), B&C’s consulting affiliate, the implications of the demise of Chevron deference,...more
Does prior express written consent permit calls/texts to consumers during the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) proscribed quiet hours? As our readers know, the FCC is now considering this very issue insofar as it...more
On June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 opinion holding that U.S. district courts are not bound to follow a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute even though the Hobbs Administrative Orders Review Act (“Hobbs...more
In a landmark development for lawsuits brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), on June 20, 2025, the US Supreme Court issued its widely anticipated decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v....more
The Supreme Court recently signaled a further shift away from judicial deference to administrative rulings. The question of whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA or “the Act”) covers online faxes (think your...more
Bergeson & Campbell, P.C. (B&C®) is pleased to present “Loper Bright: Has the Demise of Chevron Deference Mattered?,” a complimentary webinar reviewing changes to Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) determinations in light of...more
On May 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico had the opportunity to address the judicial deference that was traditionally given to administrative decisions. In Vázquez v. Consejo de Titulares, 215 D.P.R. ___, 2025 TSPR...more
Key Takeaways: The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Hobbs Act does not require district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to follow federal administrative agencies’ legal interpretations of federal statutes....more
In McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226, 2025 WL 1716136 (U.S. June 20, 2025), the Supreme Court determined that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to...more
Supreme Court just handed down the widely-watched decision in McLaughlin Chriopractric v. McKesson. Held: The Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to an agency’s interpretation of a...more
The Administrative Order Review Act (better known as the "Hobbs Act") grants "exclusive jurisdiction" to the federal courts of appeals to "determine the validity" of most FCC orders and rules and certain other agency orders....more
In a highly anticipated decision with broad implications for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) litigants, on June 20, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v....more
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., holding that the federal Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to a...more
Following in the wake of last years’ Loper Bright and Relentless, Inc. decisions that ended agency deference, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday in McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc., Inc. v. McKesson Corp. that the Hobbs Act...more
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is a federal statute that outlines how federal agencies must review the environmental impacts of their regulatory actions. The regulated community has often viewed NEPA as an...more
A "Course Correction" of NEPA Review - In an 8-0 judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had vacated the U.S. Surface Transportation Board’s (the “Board”)...more
On May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (2025) 605 U.S. ____, the Supreme Court gave instruction that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) “is a procedural cross-check, not...more
In Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the Supreme Court fundamentally altered the nature of judicial review of agency decisions involving Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) under the National...more
Litigants in Puerto Rico now have an easier path to challenge administrative agencies’ determinations after the Puerto Rico Supreme Court (PRSC) ruled in Vázquez v. Consejo de Titulares, 2025 TSPR 56, that courts shall not...more
The Supreme Court of the United States’ opinion, issued May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, reaffirms the Court’s earlier, seminal decisions expounding judicial review under the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado represents a significant change in how courts should review the adequacy of an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared...more
On May 29, 2025, in a 8-0 ruling (Justice Gorsuch recused himself from the case), the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit erred in requiring federal regulators to evaluate the potential...more
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 29 that lower courts had overstepped their bounds when reviewing federal agency actions pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The decision in Seven County...more
The decision emphasizes the importance of judicial deference to agencies on NEPA and narrows the scope of environmental analyses....more
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has issued a landmark decision limiting the deference that Puerto Rico courts owe to administrative agencies’ legal conclusions. The ruling recalibrates the balance of power between courts and...more