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
On May 12, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to reevaluate its decision not to list two species of Joshua tree—Yucca brevifolia (western...more
Within this term, the US Supreme Court’s major environmental and administrative focus was on statutory text in its environmental and administrative decisions....more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado et al. This decision held that agencies are afforded substantial deference in National...more
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
In its recent decision in Waterkeeper Alliance v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 23-636 (9th Cir. June 18, 2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) failed to...more
In Environmental Protection Agency v. Calumet Shreveport Refining, L.L.C., the Supreme Court set out the test for determining the proper venue for judicial review of EPA actions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Challenges to...more
US Supreme Court Clean Air Act (CAA) decisions often result in big-picture changes to administrative law. Two CAA decisions this term deal with CAA’s venue-related provisions which specify where cases challenging US...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
In a pair of closely watched decisions issued on June 18, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court answered a critical procedural question under the Clean Air Act (CAA): is the proper venue for judicial review of U.S. Environmental...more
Today, the Supreme Court interpreted the Clean Air Act’s venue framework for judicial review of EPA actions. Under 42 U. S. C. §7607(b)(1), “nationally applicable” EPA actions can be challenged only in the D. C. Circuit,...more
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, clarifying the standards for judicial review of challenges to agency action under the National Environmental Policy Act...more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court—minus recused Justice Neil Gorsuch—decided Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the first major NEPA dispute before the Court in 20 years. It’s a really big deal—coverage...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
On May 30, the United States District Court for the Central District of California determined that judicial review of whether state response costs are recoverable under Section 107(a)(4)(A) of the Comprehensive Environmental...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
In a much-anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court made a major “course correction” to the law governing federal environmental reviews and permitting decisions for infrastructure and other projects under the National...more
Supreme Court aims to provide predictability by narrowing the scope of NEPA review - The Supreme Court’s latest ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County marks a significant “course correction” in how...more
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified the scope of federal agency review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”)...more
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its eagerly awaited National Environmental Policy Act decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. We were not disappointed. ...more
In a highly unusual unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 29, 2025 that federal agencies are entitled to “substantial judicial deference” with respect to how they review projects subject to the National...more
In a significant decision interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado on May 29, 2025. For certain...more
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-0 opinion that clarifies the scope of environmental effects analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and requires substantial judicial deference to...more
In a landmark ruling issued May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the D.C. Circuit in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, sharply limiting the scope of environmental review...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
Over the last half century, federal courts have interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to require federal agencies to study an ever-growing range of indirect effects and impacts when approving large...more