Regulatory Rollback: CFPB’s Withdrawal of Informal Guidance Sparks New Litigation Dynamics – The Consumer Finance Podcast
Legal Implications of the Supreme Court's Ruling on Universal Injunctions
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: A Deep Dive With Mississippi and Tennessee Solicitors General — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
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
Hospice Insights Podcast - What a Difference No Deference Makes: Courts No Longer Bow to Administrative Agencies
False Claims Act Insights - How a Marine Fisheries Dispute Opened an FCA Can of Worms
The Loper Bright Decision - What Really Happened to Chevron and What's Next
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 210: Impacts of the Chevron Doctrine Ruling with Mark Moore and Michael Parente of Maynard Nexsen
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part I
In That Case: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Regulatory Uncertainty: Benefits-Related Legal Challenges in a Post-Chevron World — Troutman Pepper Podcast
The End of Chevron Deference: Implications of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright Decision — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday® - Chevron Deference Overturned - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 3: The Future of Agency Deference in Healthcare Regulation
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Supreme Court Hears Two Cases in Which the Plaintiffs Seek to Overturn the Chevron Judicial Deference Framework: Who Will Win and What Does It Mean? Part II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Will Chevron Deference Survive in the U.S. Supreme Court? An Important Discussion to Hear in Advance of the January 17th Oral Argument
On September 2, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held in Frazier v. X Corp., No. 24-1948, --- F.4th ----, 2025 WL 2502133 (2d Cir. Sept. 2, 2025), that a district court cannot intervene in an ongoing...more
The California Supreme Court issued its decision, on August 11, 2025, in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (Golden State Foods Corp.), S284498, addressing whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California’s statutory...more
On August 11, the California Supreme Court issued a significant decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court addressing the interplay between the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and California’s statutory requirements for timely...more
The California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court addressed whether California’s Code of Civil Procedure section 1281.98, which requires the party that drafted the arbitration agreement to pay...more
After years of appellate cases and several rulings holding California employers to the very strict payment standards of the California Arbitration Act (CAA), the California Supreme Court has, for the first time, addressed...more
In Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98—a do-or-die statute requiring employers to pay arbitration fees within 30 days or waive the right to...more
On August 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court issued a decision in the matter of Dana Hohenshelt v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) does not preempt the California...more
The California Supreme Court recently held in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not preempt a California law that penalizes businesses that have consumer and employee arbitration...more
On August 11, 2025, the California Supreme Court decided Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, which addresses whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts a California statute known as Senate Bill 707 (SB 707) that regulates...more
The California Supreme Court’s decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court marks an important moment for arbitration in California, particularly in the context of consumer disputes, employment disputes, and mass arbitrations....more
On Aug. 11, 2025, in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act does not preempt California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98. The statute, intended to deter the...more
The California Supreme Court issued its decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court, addressing whether the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts California's rule governing late payment of arbitration fees, Cal. Code Civ....more
In its August 11, 2025 decision in Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (S284498), the California Supreme Court clarified the reach of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1281.98, the 30-day arbitration fee payment rule. While...more
Case Background - A sanitation employee at Golden State Foods Corporation, signed an arbitration agreement governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) at the start of his employment. In 2020, after reporting alleged...more
ERISA is widely regarded as a remedial statute. As a result, employers who are pursued by multiemployer pension plans for withdrawal liability face an uphill battle when trying to recoup attorneys’ fees (often substantial)...more
A recent decision from California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal has deepened the divide among state courts on a critical issue under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA): whether a plaintiff may pursue representative...more
CRST Expedited, Inc. v. Superior Court, 2025 WL 1874891 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025) - Espiridion Sanchez filed this PAGA action against his former employer on behalf of himself and other allegedly “aggrieved employees.”...more
While we are waiting for the CA Supreme Court in Leeper v. Shipt to address whether “headless” PAGA claims (i.e., where PAGA representative plaintiffs disavow the “individual” portion of a PAGA claim) are a permissible end...more
The Fifth District Court of Appeal held that under pre-reform PAGA, headless PAGA actions in which plaintiffs seek civil penalties only on behalf of other employees and not for violations they personally experienced are...more
SCOTUS Says: Hobbs Act Does Not Bind a District Court to the FCC’s Interpretation of a Statute - On May 1, 2025, the American Arbitration Association’s new amendments to the Consumer Arbitration Rules officially went into...more
On May 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio passed on an opportunity to settle a long-standing legal question: Does Ohio law require a trial court to conduct an oral hearing before compelling arbitration under R.C. 2711.03?...more
In a unanimous opinion, the Ohio Supreme Court held that a trial court is not required to first hold an oral hearing on a motion to compel arbitration under Ohio’s Arbitration Act (R.C. 2711 et. seq.) if no party requests a...more
Since our last coverage of “headless PAGA lawsuits”—i.e., lawsuits in which a plaintiff disavows his individual PAGA claim and opts to pursue the claim only on behalf of others—significant developments have further...more
In 1925, Congress enacted the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) requiring courts to enforce agreements to arbitrate as valid contract provisions. Business communities and trade associations campaigned vigorously in support of its...more
A federal district court in Illinois became the first court to rule that an employer’s credit for a prior partial withdrawal should be applied at the end of the statute’s “waterfall” for calculating withdrawal liability. The...more