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
Podcast: Chevron Deference: Is It Time for Change? - Diagnosing Health Care
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
Earlier this month, the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court provided helpful guidance on whistleblower retaliation cases. The Court of Appeal addressed who is a prevailing party entitled to fee and cost recovery...more
A federal judge has ruled that the President Trump violated federal law when he fired Rebecca Slaughter, a Democrat, as a member of the FTC....more
Retaliation Verdict Reversed Where Plaintiff Obtained No Relief - Can an employee prove retaliation at trial yet still recover nothing – not even attorney’s fees? According to a recent decision from the California Court of...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
On June 23, 2025, in Miller Plastic Products Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, the Third Circuit ruled that substantial evidence supported the Board’s determination that a single employee’s conduct was protected...more
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) held in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida that a retired employee who could no longer hold or seek to hold her job could not sue under the Americans with Disabilities Act...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous opinion holding that Title VII does not impose a heightened or different burden of proof for majority-group plaintiffs. Simply put, “reverse discrimination” Title VII claims...more
Case: Stenson Tamaddon LLC v. IRS, No. CV-24-01123-PHX-SPL, 2025 WL 1725942 (D. Ariz. June 20, 2025) On June 20, 2025, the US District Court for the District of Arizona denied a motion for summary judgment that was filed...more
In Ville de Québec v. Ouellet, a pregnant police sergeant asked her employer, the City of Québec, to assign her safe duties rather than be pulled off the job under the workers’ compensation program known as Program for a safe...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 8, 2025, clarified the scope of “marital status” discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). In Hunter v. Debmar-Mercury LLC, et al., the Second...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified in Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, that individuals who have already retired are generally not considered “qualified individuals” eligible to assert claims under the Americans...more
On June 26, 2025, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court (PRSC) issued an opinion in Méndez Ruiz v. Techno Plastics Industries, Inc., 216 D.P.R. ____, 2025 TSPR 68 (2025), determining whether the defendant had “just cause” under...more
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its long-awaited opinion in Stanley v. City of Sanford, No. 23-997, addressing the scope of protections available to retired workers under Title I of the Americans with...more
In a decision earlier this year, the US Supreme Court held that plaintiffs bringing civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claims may be able to recover damages for business or property losses that...more
On June 24, 2025, the Oregon Supreme Court held in Crosbie v. Asante that a trial court order of the scope of issues to be retried after reversal and remand cannot be immediately appealed....more
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held on June 5, 2025, that majority group plaintiffs are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard of showing “background circumstances” to establish a prima facie case of...more
The Supreme Court’s June 5, 2025 decision to revive a heterosexual woman’s discrimination suit on the basis of sexual orientation against her employer could open a floodgate of future litigation. In a unanimous ruling...more
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, holding that courts may not impose heightened evidentiary requirements on Title VII plaintiffs simply because...more
On June 20, 2025, in Stanley v. City of Sanford, the United States Supreme Court concluded that a retiree who could no longer work because of a disability is not a “qualified individual” entitled to protection under Title I...more
Take note, employers: if your decision to accommodate a qualified employee with a disability is solely based on necessity, you may be inviting unnecessary legal exposure. ...more
Do former employees have the right to sue their previous employer under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination in the administration of post-employment fringe benefits? Resolving a circuit...more
On June 5, 2025—in the midst of heightened scrutiny of diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) initiatives triggered by executive orders issued by President Trump as well as various federal agency guidance—the Supreme Court...more
Last week in Troy Grove v. NLRB, No. 23-1164 (D.C. Cir., June 13, 2025), the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit delivered a sharp rebuke to the National Labor Relations Board, finding “irrational” the Board’s...more