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
Are You a Foreign Agent? [More with McGlinchey, Ep. 21
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 248: Listen and Learn -- Introduction to Homicide
VIDEO: Update on Third Party Workers’ Compensation Settlements in Pennsylvania
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
Key Takeaways - Federal citizen suits are likely to become more frequent as the federal government decreases its enforcement efforts. Federal courts are split on whether Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen suits can enforce...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
In the first major National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) case to reach the Supreme Court in almost two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v....more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — which requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental impacts of projects that they carry out, fund, or approve — does not...more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado et al., one of the most high-profile National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, cases to reach...more
On May 29, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado that dramatically changes the way courts scrutinize federal agencies’ environmental reviews under the...more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, limiting the role of federal courts in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) cases. The Court recognized that...more
Readers of this blog will recall our recent discussion concerning the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Court overruled the long-standing doctrine of Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v....more
On May 29, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued an 8-0 opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. that affirmed agency deference in review of environmental documents...more
Changes in federal and many states’ laws (e.g., just last month in Arizona) may put industry on more equal footing with agencies when interpreting rules and permit terms. If agencies have overreached on these interpretations,...more
Companies that rely on digital marketing are awaiting a pivotal decision from the US Supreme Court on how federal courts should treat a Federal Communications Commission interpretation of a law against junk faxes. ...more
Kilpatrick’s David Hughes recently participated in a panel titled - “The Top 10 Sales Tax and Income Tax Cases” - at the Council on State Taxation (COST) Annual Spring Meeting in New Orleans. David and his fellow thought...more
Over the last several years, thousands of incarcerated individuals have filed motions for compassionate release. As part of the submission process, individuals must outline the “extraordinary and compelling” reasons that...more
On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum (the order) directing the heads of all Federal agencies to identify unlawful or potentially unlawful regulations that clearly exceed the agency’s statutory...more
Are district courts bound by both interpretive and final rules issued by the Federal Communications Commission? The U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision to hear the case of McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates Inc. v. McKesson...more
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court knocked down Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council Inc., leaving the doctrine of Chevron deference in rubble. The doctrine stated that, when a...more
Earlier this week, my colleagues Adam Kahn and Kevin Chen posted about the proposed rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service that would rescind the definition of “harm” under the...more
President Trump issued a Memorandum on April 6 directing the heads of all executive departments and agencies to identify on a fast-track basis (60 days) certain categories of “unlawful and potentially unlawful” regulations...more
On April 17, 2025, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, Services) published a notice in the Federal Register proposing to rescind the Services’ respective...more
On April 9, 2025, President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum (Memorandum) entitled Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations. The Memorandum – part of a broader “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory...more
Last year, the United States Supreme Court’s Loper Bright decision put an end to “Chevron deference,” a judicial practice of deferring to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutory language. While the legal...more