Podcasts about Administrative Procedure Act

This Day in Legal History: Nuremberg ExecutionsOn October 16, 1946, ten prominent Nazi war criminals were executed by hanging in the aftermath of the landmark Nuremberg Trials, held to prosecute key figures of the Third Reich for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against peace. The executions marked the culmination of months of legal proceedings conducted by an international military tribunal composed of judges from the Allied powers: the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and France. Among those hanged was Joachim von Ribbentrop, Hitler's former Foreign Minister, convicted for his role in orchestrating Nazi foreign policy and enabling the Holocaust.The trials had concluded in late September 1946, with 12 of the 22 main defendants receiving death sentences. However, Hermann Göring, one of the most high-profile defendants and head of the Luftwaffe, committed suicide by cyanide just hours before his scheduled execution. The hangings took place inside the gymnasium of the Nuremberg Palace of Justice, where the tribunal had convened, and were carried out in the early morning hours.The executions were overseen by U.S. Army personnel, and steps were taken to document them for historical record. The event was viewed by many as a pivotal moment in the establishment of international criminal law, affirming that individuals—even heads of state and high-ranking officials—could be held personally accountable for war atrocities. These proceedings laid the groundwork for future tribunals, including those for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.Some criticized the process as “victor's justice,” pointing to perceived inconsistencies in sentencing and legal procedures. Nevertheless, the trials represented a significant shift from the post-World War I approach, which had failed to adequately prosecute war crimes. The executions on October 16 symbolized not only the end of an era of unchecked totalitarian violence but also the beginning of a new international legal order based on accountability and the rule of law.A federal judge in California has temporarily blocked the Trump administration's latest wave of federal layoffs, calling the move likely “illegal and in excess of authority.” In a sharply worded order, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston halted terminations that began last week, siding with a coalition of federal worker unions. Illston criticized the administration's approach as “ready, fire, aim” and warned that the human cost of such abrupt cuts is unacceptable.The layoffs—over 4,100 in total—targeted several federal agencies, with the Departments of Health and Human Services and Treasury seeing the bulk of cuts. Judge Illston's order requires the administration to report all completed and planned layoffs by Friday and set a hearing for a preliminary injunction on October 28. She also rejected the Department of Justice's attempt to steer the case toward procedural issues, stating that the legal merits were too concerning to ignore.President Trump has framed the cuts as politically motivated, stating they were aimed at eliminating programs he called “egregious socialist, semi-communist.” He added that Republican-backed programs would be spared. The administration recently lifted a long-standing hiring freeze but is now requiring agencies to submit staffing plans for approval.Union plaintiffs argue that the layoffs violate the Antideficiency Act and the Administrative Procedure Act, citing the administration's use of the government shutdown as an arbitrary justification. This case, AFGE v. OMB, marks another legal confrontation over workforce reductions, following an earlier freeze issued by Judge Illston that was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court.Trump's Shutdown-Linked Layoffs Paused by California Judge (4)The 2026 U.S. law school admissions cycle is off to an intense start, with applications up 33% compared to this time last year, according to new data from the Law School Admission Council. This surge follows last year's admissions boom and signals another highly competitive year for aspiring law students. Admissions consultant Mike Spivey noted he's never seen such a sharp early increase in over two decades of reviewing application data, predicting a likely total rise of around 20% once the cycle concludes.Several factors are driving the spike, including a tough job market for recent college graduates—whose unemployment rate now surpasses that of the broader labor force—and growing political instability. Law School Admission Council President Sudha Setty also cited concerns about the impact of AI and broader economic uncertainty as motivators for many applicants. Additionally, more people are taking the LSAT this year, up nearly 22% over 2025 levels.A recent Kaplan survey found 56% of law school admissions officers pointed to politics as a major factor behind last year's surge, with 90% expecting this cycle to be just as competitive, if not more so. Some applicants are likely reapplying after being rejected last year, or returning after delaying applications due to last year's high volume. While law schools will benefit from a deeper pool of candidates, Spivey warned the sharp increase means tougher odds for acceptance across the board.US law school applicants increase 33%, boosting competition | ReutersPresident Donald Trump's decision to fund military pay during the ongoing government shutdown is only a short-term solution, according to House Speaker Mike Johnson. On Wednesday, Johnson confirmed that 1.3 million active-duty service members, along with tens of thousands of National Guard and reservists, were paid using $6.5 billion in unused military research and development funds. However, he warned that unless Democrats act to reopen the government, troops are unlikely to receive their next paycheck on October 31.The White House has not explained its legal rationale for this funding maneuver, and it hasn't requested the required congressional approvals to shift funds between accounts. Federal law caps such transfers at $8 billion annually and only allows them if the funds are used for their legally designated purposes. Without further funding authority, it's unclear how the administration could cover future military pay. While many lawmakers support a standalone bill to guarantee troop pay, Republican leaders—including Johnson and Senate Majority Whip John Thune—are resisting that option. They argue that doing so would reduce pressure to end the shutdown overall.Some Republicans, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski, say the move has reduced urgency in Congress while leaving other federal workers unpaid. The political optics are further complicated by Trump's claim that only Democrat-backed programs are being cut, as he seeks to frame the issue as partisan. Internally, GOP leaders worry that passing targeted funding bills could open the door to broader demands for agency-by-agency funding relief, weakening their leverage in shutdown negotiations.By way of brief background, the move likely violates the Antideficiency Act (ADA), which bars federal officials from spending money before or beyond congressional appropriations. Trump reportedly ordered the Department of Defense to divert funds from the RDT&E account—meant for weapons research—to cover military payroll. That account is not legally authorized for such use, and the funds may have also exceeded their availability period.This raises two major legal issues. First, under the Appropriations Clause (Article I, § 9, cl. 7), only Congress may authorize government spending. The president cannot repurpose funds without specific legislative approval. Second, the ADA prohibits both misappropriation of purpose (spending money on unauthorized functions) and misappropriation of timing (using expired funds). If proven willful, such violations can carry criminal penalties, though prosecutions are rare.Beyond the legal breach, this act could set a dangerous precedent. If courts decline to intervene, it could signal that future presidents—regardless of party—can redirect federal funds without congressional consent. This would erode legislative power and potentially turn the presidency into a de facto appropriations authority, undermining the Constitution's separation of powers.Special thanks to Bobby Kogan, the Senior Director of Federal Budget Policy for the Center for American Progress, for his instructive Bluesky post explaining the deficiency issue in a way much clearer and more succinctly than I otherwise would have been able to.Trump's troop pay move is a ‘temporary fix,' Johnson says - Live Updates - POLITICOPost by @did:plc:drfb2pdjlnsqkfgsoellcahm — BlueskyA piece I wrote for Forbes this week looks at how Norway is showing the rest of the world how to end EV subsidies without wrecking the market. The country announced in its latest budget that it will phase out its long-standing value-added tax (VAT) exemption for electric vehicles—partially in 2026, and fully by 2027. This might seem like a policy retreat, but the timing is deliberate: EVs now make up 95–98% of new car sales in Norway. The market has matured, and the subsidy is no longer essential.I argue that this is what smart policy looks like—temporary support that steps aside when it's no longer needed. The U.S., by contrast, killed its federal EV tax credit abruptly and politically, without phasing it out or adapting it for current market conditions. In doing so, it treated the credit as a political symbol rather than a market tool. Norway, on the other hand, used the exemption strategically, aligning it with broader policy goals and allowing it to sunset once those goals were met.The piece highlights how the U.S. often fears both removing and maintaining subsidies, caught in a cycle where incentives become political footballs. Norway's approach offers a model for how to responsibly end subsidies: gradually, rationally, and only once the market no longer needs them. This isn't anti-EV or anti-climate policy—it's a sign that the original policy worked.Norway Shows How To End EV Subsidies Without Killing The Market This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The podcast show we are releasing today is a repurposing of part 2 of a webinar we produced on August 13, 2025, which explored the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a ruling that significantly curtails the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions. A universal injunction is one which confers benefits on non-parties to the lawsuit. This case marks a turning point in federal court jurisprudence, with profound implications for equitable relief, national policy, and governance. Our distinguished panel of legal scholars, Suzette Malveaux (Roger D. Groot Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law), Portia Pedro (Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law), and Alan Trammell (Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law) are joined by experienced litigators Alan Kaplinsky, Carter G. Phillips (Former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States & Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), and Burt M. Rublin (Senior Counsel and Appellate Group Practice Leader, Ballard Spahr LLP). These panelists dive deep into the Court's decision, unpacking its historical foundation, analyzing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and evaluating its far-reaching effects on all stakeholders, including industry groups, trade associations, federal agencies, the judiciary, the executive branch, and everyday citizens. This podcast show and the one we released last Thursday, September 25, cover these critical topics: ·        The originalist and historical reasoning behind the Court's rejection of universal injunctions ·        A detailed analysis of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions ·        The ruling's impact on legal challenges to federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders ·        The potential role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, including the status of the CASA case and other cases where plaintiffs have pursued class actions ·        The use of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) to “set aside” or “vacate” unlawful regulations and Section 705 of the APA to seek stays of regulation effective dates ·        The viability of associational standing for trade groups challenging regulations on behalf of their members ·        The ruling's influence on forum selection and judicial assignment strategies, including “judge-shopping” ·        The Supreme Court's increasing use of its emergency or “shadow” docket, rather than its conventional certiorari docket, to render extraordinarily important opinions  This is a unique opportunity to hear from leading experts as they break down one of the most consequential and controversial Supreme Court decisions of this Supreme Court Term. These podcast shows will provide you with valuable insights into how this ruling reshapes the legal landscape. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

The podcast show we are releasing today is a repurposing of part 1 of a webinar we produced on August 13, 2025, which explored the U.S. Supreme Court's pivotal 6-3 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc., a ruling that significantly curtails the use of nationwide or “universal” injunctions. A universal injunction is one which confers benefits on non-parties to the lawsuit. This case marks a turning point in federal court jurisprudence, with profound implications for equitable relief, national policy, and governance. Our distinguished panel of legal scholars, Suzette Malveaux (Roger D. Groot Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law), Portia Pedro (Associate Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law), and Alan Trammell (Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law) are joined by experienced litigators Alan Kaplinsky, Carter G. Phillips (Former Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States & Partner, Sidley Austin LLP), and Burt M. Rublin (Senior Counsel and Appellate Group Practice Leader, Ballard Spahr LLP). These panelists dive deep into the Court's decision, unpacking its historical foundation, analyzing the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions, and evaluating its far-reaching effects on all stakeholders, including industry groups, trade associations, federal agencies, the judiciary, the executive branch, and everyday citizens. This podcast show and the one we release one week from today cover these critical topics: ·         The originalist and historical reasoning behind the Court's rejection of universal injunctions ·         A detailed analysis of the majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions ·         The ruling's impact on legal challenges to federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders ·         The potential role of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) class actions as alternatives to universal injunctions, including the status of the CASA case and other cases where plaintiffs have pursued class actions ·         The use of Section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”) to “set aside” or “vacate” unlawful regulations and Section 705 of the APA to seek stays of regulation effective dates ·         The viability of associational standing for trade groups challenging regulations on behalf of their members ·         The ruling's influence on forum selection and judicial assignment strategies, including “judge-shopping” ·         The Supreme Court's increasing use of its emergency or “shadow” docket, rather than its conventional certiorari docket, to render extraordinarily important opinions  This is a unique opportunity to hear from leading experts as they break down one of the most consequential and controversial Supreme Court decisions of this Supreme Court Term. These podcast shows will provide you with valuable insights into how this ruling reshapes the legal landscape. Consumer Finance Monitor is hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel at Ballard Spahr, and the founder and former chair of the firm's Consumer Financial Services Group. We encourage listeners to subscribe to the podcast on their preferred platform for weekly insights into developments in the consumer finance industry.

This Day in Legal History: Judiciary Act of 1789On September 24, 1789, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, formally titled An Act to Establish the Judicial Courts of the United States. This foundational statute created the structure of the federal judiciary as we know it today, establishing a three-tiered court system consisting of district courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court. At the top sat a six-member Supreme Court, with one Chief Justice and five Associate Justices. The Act also created 13 district courts and three circuit courts, aligning largely with state boundaries, and assigned federal judges to serve on both district and circuit courts—a practice known as “circuit riding.”The Act gave federal courts jurisdiction over a wide range of cases, including those involving federal law, disputes between states, and cases between citizens of different states. It also authorized the Supreme Court to review decisions from state courts when federal law was at issue, a power that would later be affirmed in Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816). The Act created the office of the Attorney General, tasked with representing the United States in legal matters, and laid the groundwork for the U.S. Marshals Service.One of the most controversial provisions was Section 25, which allowed the Supreme Court to overturn state court decisions that conflicted with federal law or the U.S. Constitution—an early assertion of federal supremacy. The Act was largely the product of compromise, balancing the concerns of Federalists, who favored a strong national judiciary, and Anti-Federalists, who feared centralized power.The Judiciary Act of 1789 was signed into law by President George Washington on the same day he nominated the first justices to the Supreme Court. Chief among them was John Jay, who became the nation's first Chief Justice. The Act did not resolve all questions about federal judicial power, but it laid a durable foundation that, with amendments, remains in place more than two centuries later.The Justice Department's “weaponization” working group, led by controversial interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, has launched an inquiry into alleged improper practices at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). In a June letter to then-Acting PTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart, Martin accused the agency of covertly targeting certain patent applications—especially those in the electrical and artificial intelligence fields—for secret scrutiny and delay. He alleged the existence of a Biden-era revival of the discontinued Sensitive Application Warning System (SAWS), a program once used to quietly flag questionable applications without applicant knowledge. To be clear, these “questionable applications” were for things like free energy systems and so-called “miracle cures.”Martin, who framed his inquiry as part of enforcing President Trump's executive orders on transparency, claimed Stewart had uncovered and ended the secretive policy. The letter demanded records related to the review of AI-related patents and other complex applications. The investigation was triggered by a PTO presentation highlighting a study on “patent thickets,” or overlapping patent claims in large families, which revealed examiner challenges in identifying double patenting issues in up to 22% of cases.Critics argue that such behind-the-scenes programs lack transparency and due process for inventors. Veteran patent attorney Tom Franklin warned that any flagging system that denies applicants notice and opportunity to respond undermines legal fairness. However, some public interest advocates, like Alex Moss, defended the PTO's efforts to improve patent quality, dismissing claims of illegality as political posturing.Martin's involvement has drawn scrutiny given his record of dismissing January 6 prosecutions, purging prosecutors, and publicly airing inflammatory and racist remarks, including blaming “crazy Black ladies” for his firing from CNN. Now awaiting Senate confirmation for the U.S. Attorney role in D.C., Martin's actions at DOJ—and this patent investigation—are fueling growing opposition in Congress.DOJ ‘Weaponization' Leader Sought Info on Patent Office ProgramA federal judge has extended an injunction blocking the Trump administration from imposing political and ideological conditions on federal grant funding. The order, issued by Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, follows a previous temporary restraining order granted in August. The court found that cities and counties led by Fresno, California, are likely to succeed in their lawsuit, which argues the administration exceeded its legal authority and violated constitutional protections.The plaintiffs challenge a series of Trump executive orders, including one from August 7, which restricted federal funding from being used to support policies involving racial equity, environmental justice, transgender rights, immigration protections, and what it called “anti-American values.” Local governments say they were told to strip grant applications of any mention of “equity” or related concepts, or risk losing funding. Fresno reported receiving a letter from HUD on August 18, questioning its compliance with these mandates.Judge Seeborg agreed the orders may violate multiple legal provisions, including the Spending Clause, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments, and the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the conditions were likely arbitrary, beyond the scope of the administration's statutory authority, and unconstitutional. The administration had asked that any injunction be narrowly tailored, but Seeborg extended the broader block on enforcing these grant conditions.Trump Further Blocked From Imposing Federal Grant ConditionsU.S. law schools are reporting record-breaking first-year enrollment in 2025, driven by an 18% surge in applicants—a sharp jump following an already strong admissions cycle in 2024. Elon University School of Law is among seven schools announcing their largest-ever incoming classes, while at least ten others, including Harvard, reported their biggest first-year cohorts in over a decade. Harvard Law School enrolled 579 students this fall, up 3% from its norm and the largest class since at least 2011.The full scope of national enrollment won't be known until the American Bar Association releases official numbers in December, but early reports suggest crowded campuses and logistical challenges like classroom capacity and student support services. The University of Hawaii, Liberty University, Rutgers, Pace, and several regional law schools also saw record or near-record first-year intake.While law school deans are celebrating the growth, some industry experts are cautious. Nikia Gray of the National Association for Law Placement warned that an influx of graduates in 2028 could saturate the job market, especially as law firms scale back entry-level hiring due to AI advancements. Still, others see opportunity—Southern Illinois Law Dean Hannah Brenner Johnson noted rising student numbers may help address access-to-justice issues in underserved regions, or “legal deserts.”The last major spike in law school enrollment came in 2021 amid COVID-19, but that cohort graduated into a strong job market. Whether the class of 2028 will enjoy similar employment success is uncertain, as economic conditions and tech disruption may shift in the coming years.Applicant boom drives record first-year law school classes | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In the second of a two part series on the impact of administrative law in the health care industry, hosts Payal Nanavati and Savanna Williams talk to Dan Wolff about the practicalities of seeking judicial review to challenge agency actions, the impact of Loper Bright, and the major questions doctrine. This podcast episode features the following speakers: Dan Wolff is a partner in Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C. office and leads the firm's administrative law litigation practice. Dan's practice encompasses litigation arising under the Administrative Procedure Act or as a result of government enforcement actions or commercial disputes. He regularly appears in federal district and appellate courts around the country and before a host of agency tribunals, and counsels clients on their rights and obligations under a number of federal regulatory programs. Payers, Providers, and Patients – Oh My! is Crowell & Moring's health care podcast, discussing legal and regulatory issues that affect health care entities' in-house counsel, executives, and investors.

This Day in Legal History: Certiorari Granted in WindsorOn September 11, 2012, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a petition for certiorari in United States v. Windsor, setting the stage for one of the most consequential civil rights decisions of the decade. The case challenged Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage for federal purposes as between one man and one woman. Edith Windsor, the plaintiff, had been legally married to her same-sex partner, Thea Spyer, in Canada. When Spyer died, Windsor was denied the federal estate tax exemption for surviving spouses, resulting in a tax bill exceeding $350,000.Windsor argued that DOMA violated the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection as applied to the federal government. The Obama administration, though initially defending DOMA, reversed course and declined to continue doing so, prompting the Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) of the House of Representatives to intervene. The DOJ's September 11 petition reflected the administration's desire to have the Supreme Court resolve the constitutional question as quickly as possible.In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled 5–4 in favor of Windsor, striking down Section 3 of DOMA as unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the federal government could not single out same-sex marriages for unequal treatment under the law. The ruling granted same-sex couples access to hundreds of federal benefits and marked a turning point in the legal recognition of LGBTQ+ rights.The Windsor decision laid the constitutional groundwork for Obergefell v. Hodges two years later, which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The filing on September 11, 2012, was a procedural but critical moment that pushed the case toward the highest court in the land. It also signaled a shift in the federal government's posture toward LGBTQ+ equality—moving from defense of discriminatory laws to active legal opposition.The trial of Ryan Routh, accused of attempting to assassinate then former President Donald Trump, begins this week in Fort Pierce, Florida. Routh, 59, is facing five federal charges, including attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, and has chosen to represent himself. Prosecutors allege that Routh hid with a rifle near the sixth hole of Trump's golf course in West Palm Beach last September, intending to kill Trump. He fled after a Secret Service agent spotted him before any shots were fired and was arrested the same day.The trial opens amid rising concerns about political violence in the U.S., underscored by the recent killing of Trump ally Charlie Kirk in Utah. Trump himself has been targeted multiple times, including a shooting in Pennsylvania in July 2024 that left him wounded. Routh, a former roofing contractor with a history of erratic behavior, had expressed political views supporting Taiwan and Ukraine and previously outlined a bizarre plan involving Afghan refugees.The case is being heard by Judge Aileen Cannon, the same judge who previously dismissed a separate criminal case against Trump involving classified documents. Cannon has already expressed frustration with Routh during jury selection, rejecting several of his proposed questions as irrelevant. The jury consists of seven women and five men. The trial is expected to spotlight the ongoing increase in politically motivated violence in the U.S.,Trial begins for man accused of trying to assassinate Trump, spotlighting US political violence | ReutersFive former federal employees have filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC), alleging the agency unlawfully dismissed their complaints after being fired early in President Trump's second term. Represented by Democracy Forward, the plaintiffs claim OSC failed to investigate over 2,000 complaints from probationary employees terminated en masse in February 2025, despite earlier findings that the firings may have violated federal law. The lawsuit, filed in D.C. federal court, seeks a ruling that OSC's blanket dismissal of the complaints was arbitrary and violated the Administrative Procedure Act.Probationary federal employees—often in their first year or newly assigned roles—have fewer job protections, making them vulnerable to politically motivated purges. In this case, the Trump administration dismissed roughly 25,000 such employees, sparking multiple legal challenges. Some courts briefly reinstated the workers, but appeals courts ruled that plaintiffs lacked standing or needed to exhaust administrative remedies before going to court.OSC, under former Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, had suggested the mass terminations were unlawful. However, after Trump fired Dellinger, his replacement, Jamieson Greer, dismissed all the pending complaints, citing alignment with new administrative priorities. The plaintiffs argue this abrupt shift was politically driven and undermined OSC's duty to safeguard merit-based civil service protections.The lawsuit aims to compel OSC to reopen investigations into the firings and reassert that probationary employees still retain legal protections from unlawful dismissals.US Special Counsel sued for dismissing fired federal workers' complaints | ReutersThe Trump administration has appealed a federal judge's decision blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, aiming to fire her before the central bank's next interest rate meeting on September 16. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that President Trump's claim—alleging Cook committed mortgage fraud before taking office—likely does not meet the legal threshold to justify her dismissal. The administration's brief appeal to the D.C. Circuit did not include arguments, but signaled urgency given the upcoming monetary policy meeting.Cook, who has denied any wrongdoing, filed suit in August claiming that the fraud allegations were a pretext for removing her due to her policy positions. She argues that the law governing the Federal Reserve allows a governor to be removed only “for cause,” a term not clearly defined in the statute and never previously tested in court. Cobb agreed that the case raises new and important legal questions, emphasizing the public interest in shielding the Fed from political pressure.The DOJ has opened a criminal investigation into the alleged mortgage fraud, with grand jury subpoenas issued in Georgia and Michigan. The case could have broader implications for the independence of federal agencies, especially those like the Fed that have traditionally operated free from executive interference. This follows other high-profile cases in which courts have temporarily blocked Trump from firing leaders of independent agencies, including the U.S. Copyright Office.Trump has pressured the Fed to lower interest rates and criticized Chair Jerome Powell, though Cook has consistently voted with the Fed majority on rate decisions. Her continued presence at the Fed could influence upcoming policy moves.Trump administration appeals ruling blocking removal of Fed Governor Cook | ReutersA federal appeals court has upheld most provisions of a New Jersey law restricting firearms in designated “sensitive places,” such as parks, hospitals, beaches, libraries, and casinos. The 2-1 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court ruling that found the law violated the Second Amendment. The appeals court concluded the restrictions aligned with historical firearm regulations in places traditionally considered sensitive due to their civic or public safety function.The ruling is a setback for gun rights advocates, following similar decisions by appeals courts in California, Hawaii, and New York. These rulings come in the wake of the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new framework for evaluating gun laws—requiring that modern regulations be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm control. While Bruen expanded gun rights, it also acknowledged the legitimacy of restrictions in sensitive locations.Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, writing for the majority, emphasized that U.S. history supports limiting firearms in specific public areas to preserve peace and safety. Judge Cindy Chung concurred, while Judge David Porter dissented, arguing the government shouldn't be able to arbitrarily declare places “sensitive” to limit gun rights.The New Jersey Attorney General praised the decision, while gun rights groups criticized it as an overly deferential interpretation of the Second Amendment.US appeals court largely upholds New Jersey gun restrictions | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

It's been a whirlwind few days in courtrooms across Washington and beyond, as legal battles tied to former President Donald Trump have dominated headlines. I'll jump right into it. The most closely watched case right now is Taylor v. Trump, which is being heard in the District Court. This one centers on Trump's executive order restoring the death penalty and toughening conditions of imprisonment, a direct move under Executive Order 14164. The trial kicked off on August 11, lasted three days, and legal experts have been watching for how the judge will interpret civil liberties claims versus federal power.At the same time, the National Association of the Deaf is suing Donald Trump along with White House officials like Susan Wiles and Karoline Leavitt. Their core argument? By ending ASL interpretation at federal press briefings and events, Trump is violating not only the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which protects disability rights, but also key First and Fifth Amendment protections. Plaintiffs have asked the court to order the administration to restore these services, arguing it's essential for equal protection and free speech.Meanwhile, legal teams on both sides have been busy in appellate courts and even the Supreme Court. Just a few nights ago, Judge Florence Pan on the D.C. Circuit wrote a pivotal opinion that reshaped how grantees could challenge Trump's actions on foreign aid payments. The panel's revision sent the case back to district court, offering a pathway for the groups involved to seek relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. In the wake of these moves, counsel for the government officially withdrew the request for emergency Supreme Court intervention, meaning Congress will now weigh in on Trump's proposed rescissions for a $15 billion foreign aid package.Immigration issues also remain front and center. A federal court has blocked Trump's fast-track deportation policy after a lawsuit led by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ruling states this expansion denied immigrants their due process, and the court made clear: during litigation, the policy is halted.And one more headline out of the Court of Appeals—V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump is on hold pending a possible Supreme Court review. The appellate court ordered the mandate withheld until October 14, giving either side time to seek a writ of certiorari from the highest court.Each one of these cases underscores the ongoing tension between presidential authority and individual rights, as well as the ability—and the limits—of the courts to check executive orders. Thanks for tuning in to this special update. Be sure to come back next week for the latest developments. This has been a Quiet Please production. For more, check out QuietPlease Dot A I.Some great Deals https://amzn.to/49SJ3QsFor more check out http://www.quietplease.ai

In the first of a two part series on the impact of administrative law in the health care industry, hosts Payal Nanavati and Savanna Williams talk to Dan Wolff about how administrative law manifests itself on a day-to-day basis and how to interact with agency officials in a heavily regulated industry. This podcast episode features the following speakers: Dan Wolff is a partner in Crowell & Moring's Washington, D.C. office and leads the firm's administrative law litigation practice. Dan's practice encompasses litigation arising under the Administrative Procedure Act or as a result of government enforcement actions or commercial disputes. He regularly appears in federal district and appellate courts around the country and before a host of agency tribunals, and counsels clients on their rights and obligations under a number of federal regulatory programs. Payers, Providers, and Patients – Oh My! is Crowell & Moring's health care podcast, discussing legal and regulatory issues that affect health care entities' in-house counsel, executives, and investors.

Among the points emphasized by the second Trump administration has been a major push for deregulation. President Trump has directed that there must be ten deregulatory actions for every one regulatory one, and put forward Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders to that end. As some have noted, however, such deregulation can take significant time due to factors like the requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.”This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner.Featuring:John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for ImpactJonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

In this episode of Full Spectrum, Kelley Drye's Communications team provides a detailed “First Take” on the Federal Communications Commission's July 24, 2025 Open Meeting. Special Counsel Mike Dover is joined by partners Chip Yorkgitis and Hank Kelly, and senior associates Jennifer Wainwright and Winafred Brantl, to break down the Commission's major actions and rulemakings, including: • A multi-part Report and Order on pole attachments that introduces new application timelines, advance notice requirements, meet-and-confer obligations, and expanded self-help rights for attachers • Updates to designated entity eligibility rules ahead of the AWS-3 spectrum auction (Auction 113), including revised bidding credits for small and rural service providers • A direct final rule eliminating 11 outdated regulations—such as rules for analog TV, payphones, and telegraphs—while outlining a broader FCC strategy to streamline future rulemaking • A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to modernize rules for network transitions, including proposals to reduce or eliminate certain network change disclosures and streamline Section 214 discontinuance processes • Another NPRM revisiting the FCC's slamming, cramming, and truth-in-billing rules, asking whether current protections are still necessary and proposing a simplified, unified framework The episode also touches on broader themes like AI-driven fraud, transparency in billing, and the agency's increased use of the Administrative Procedure Act's direct final rule mechanism. Whether you work in broadband, wireless, telecom, or policy, this recap offers a sharp, practical rundown of where FCC priorities are headed next.

Our podcast show being released today commemorates the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises - the opinion in which the Court overturned the Chevron Deference Doctrine. The Chevron Deference Doctrine stems from the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The decision basically held that if federal legislation is ambiguous the courts must defer to the regulatory agency's interpretation if the regulation is reasonable. My primary goal was to identify a person who would be universally considered one of the country's leading experts on administrative law and, specifically the Chevron Deference Doctrine and how the courts have applied the Roper opinion. I was very fortunate to recruit Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law at Penn Law School and Director of the Penn Program on Regulation. In this episode we explore two of his recent and widely discussed papers, titled “Loper Bright's Disingenuity” and “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright” Here are the questions that we discussed with Professor Coglianese: Let's start at the beginning. What is the Chevron case all about? How did the Court in Loper Bright explain why it was overruling Chevron? You have a new article coming out later this year in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review called “Loper Bright's Disingenuity,” co-authored with David Froomkin of the University of Houston. What do you and Professor Froomkin mean by the title of your article?  In your article, you critique what you call the Court's “facile formalism.” What do you mean by that? You also criticize the way the Court based its decision in Loper Bright on the Administrative Procedure Act or APA. What exactly was problematic about the Court's APA analysis?  Let's shift gears from your analysis of the logic of the Loper Bright opinion to talk about what the decision's effects have been so far and what its effects ultimately might be on the future of administrative government in the United States. You have another article on Loper Bright that was recently published in the Administrative Law Review and coauthored with Dan Walters of Texas A&M Law School. It has another provocative title: “The Great Unsettling: Administrative Governance After Loper Bright.”  What do you mean by the “Great Unsettling”?  Although you say that it is hard to predict exactly what impact Loper Bright will have on the future of administrative government, you also acknowledge that the decision has created a “symbolic shock” and is likely to “punctuate the equilibrium of the administrative governance game as we have come to know it.”  Can we see any effects so far in terms of how Loper Bright is affecting court decisions?  For example, let's start with the Supreme Court itself. Has it had anything more to say about Loper Bright in decisions it's handed down this past year? If we look at the lower courts, what can we discern about how Loper Bright has been received in federal district courts or courts of appeals?  Are there any trends that can be observed? I'd like to bring things full circle by raising a metaphor you and Professor Walters use in your article, “The Great Unsettling.” You say there that the Loper Bright “decision might best be thought of as something of a Rorschach test inside a crystal ball.” What do you mean? Can you tell us what you see inside your crystal ball? Alan Kaplinsky, the founder and former chair and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group hosted the podcast show.  

Da Silva Borges v. Bondi, No. 24-1695 (1st Cir. July 18, 2025) ·       DHS burden to prove alienage by clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence; Woodby standard; Rosa Perez Cruz v. Bondi, No. 24-2865 (9th Cir. July 21, 2025) ·       CAT protection; Gulf Cartel; cooperation with U.S. government; presumption of regularity; considering entire record; audio issues; due process; prejudice; Mexico Singh v. Bondi, No. 23-9598 (10th Cir. July 22, 2025) ·       mental health; competency; hunger strike; continuance Cano-Gutierrez v. Bondi, No. 24-1616 (1st Cir. July 24, 2025) ·       asylum; CAT protection; nexus; particular social group; generalized violence; issue exhaustion; waiver of issuesGomez-Gabriel v. U.S. Atty Gen., No. 24-2559 (3d Cir. July 24, 2025) ·       Summary affirmance; 8 C.F.R. § 1003.1(e)(4); issue exhaustion; 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1); nexus; gang violence; indigenous  Cabello Garcia v. USCIS, No. 23-35267 (9th Cir. July 22, 2025) ·       8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); U visa adjustment of status; 8 U.S.C. § 1255(m); medical exam; discretionary relief; collateral challenge; adjustment of status; Administrative Procedure Act; due process; Patel v. Garland Sponsors and friends of the podcast! Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.  Cerenade"Leader in providing smart, secure, and intuitive cloud-based solutions"Demo Link!Click me too! Stafi "Remote staffing solutions for businesses of all sizes"Promo Code: STAFI2025Click me! Gonzales & Gonzales Immigration BondsP: (833) 409-9200immigrationbond.com   Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page! CONTACT INFORMATION Email: kgregg@kktplaw.com Facebook: @immigrationreview Instagram: @immigrationreview Twitter: @immreview About your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego Voyager DISCLAIMER & CREDITSSee Eps. 1-200 Support the showSupport the show

Consumer advocacy groups led by Rise Economy filed a lawsuit against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau for not implementing a small-business data collection rule mandated by Congress under the Dodd-Frank Act. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Administrative Procedure Act and seeks to require the CFPB to collect and publish data on small-business loan applications, including demographic details and loan denials. Banking trade groups have also challenged the rule, citing compliance burdens, resulting in multiple court delays and an extended compliance deadline to July 2026. The case centers on the need for data to identify lending discrimination and credit access gaps for small businesses.Learn more on this news by visiting us at: https://greyjournal.net/news/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a district court issue a nationwide (universal) injunction that blocks enforcement of a federal executive order beyond the specific parties involved in the lawsuit?The case was decided on June 27, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Federal courts likely lack equitable authority under the Judiciary Act of 1789 to issue universal injunctions that prohibit enforcement of executive actions beyond the parties before the court. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.Under the Judiciary Act of 1789, federal courts possess only those equitable remedies “traditionally accorded by courts of equity” at the time of the founding. The Court finds no historical precedent for universal injunctions in English equity courts or early American practice. English equity courts operated through party-specific proceedings, where relief was limited to those actually before the court. While bills of peace allowed courts to adjudicate rights of dispersed groups, these involved small, cohesive groups and bound all members—unlike universal injunctions that protect non-parties without binding them. The historical absence of universal injunctions until the mid-20th century confirms they fall outside traditional equitable authority.The complete relief principle permits courts to fashion remedies that fully redress plaintiffs' injuries, but complete relief does not equal universal relief. Courts may award relief that incidentally benefits non-parties when necessary to provide complete relief to plaintiffs, such as in nuisance cases where divisible relief is impossible. However, prohibiting enforcement of the Executive Order against individual plaintiffs' children provides them complete relief without requiring nationwide application. For state plaintiffs claiming administrative and financial harms, the Court remands for lower courts to determine whether narrower injunctions could provide complete relief, such as prohibiting enforcement within plaintiff states or treating affected children as eligible for federally funded benefits.Justice Clarence Thomas authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, emphasizing that courts must not expand the complete relief principle to recreate universal injunctions under a different name and that relief should be tailored to redress only plaintiffs' particular injuries.Justice Samuel Alito authored a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Thomas, warning that lax enforcement of third-party standing requirements and class certification procedures could create loopholes that undermine the Court's holding against universal injunctions.Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a concurring opinion explaining that while universal injunctions are improper, plaintiffs may still seek classwide preliminary relief under Rule 23(b)(2) or ask courts to set aside agency rules under the Administrative Procedure Act, and emphasizing that the Court will continue to serve as the ultimate arbiter of the interim legal status of major federal actions.Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that universal injunctions have deep roots in equity's history through bills of peace and taxpayer suits, that the Executive Order is patently unconstitutional under the Citizenship Clause, and that limiting injunctive relief will leave constitutional rights meaningful in name only for those unable to sue.Justice Jackson authored a separate dissenting opinion arguing that the majority's decision creates an existential threat to the rule of law by allowing the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not sued, effectively creating zones where executive compliance with law becomes optional rather than mandatory.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

Mere days after SCOTUS enjoins universal injunctions, judges find other way to afford “complete relief.” A big one: The Administrative Procedure Act allows courts to enjoin agency actions.Also:What if a defendant does not want a co-defendant dismissed and relieved of liability? The California Supreme Court says co-defendants can oppose each other's MSJs in R&D Contractors v. Superior Court.The Climategate saga continues: when 12-years of anti-SLAPP litigation does not end Dr. Michael Mann's lawsuit defending his “hockey stick” temperature graph, the D.C. court reverses on punitive damages: with a mere $1 nominal damages award, $1M in punitives is too high. Dr. Mann's total result after a dozen years of litigation: $6,002 (and a bill for $9,000 in discovery sanctions).You snooze, you pay: Employer gets sanctioned $183k for late arbitration fee payment in Guffey v. Bokeet.Family law FC 2030 fee denial reversed for considering improper, extra-statutory equitable factors in Marriage of Sadie v. Cativar.Georgia appellate court sanctions lawyer for ChatGPT-cited fake cases, citing study showing AI makes mistakes 75% of the time.Can you hand up exhibits during appellate argument? Maybe in Texas.The Third District new program delays record deadlines pending mediation.Tune in for insights on trial prep, appeals strategy, and the increasingly blurred lines between branches of government.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.Other items discussed in the episode:Climate Change Trial Update: Jury awards $1 plus $1M punitives for hockey-stick criticismAlex Anteau 'Don't Be Dumb': Ga. Court of Appeals Sanction Gives Insight...Law360 The Funniest Moments of The Supreme Court's Term - Law360

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Hobbs Act require a federal district court to accept the Federal Communication Commission's legal interpretation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act?The case was decided on June 20, 2025.The Supreme Court held that the Hobbs Act does not preclude judicial review of an agency's statutory interpretation in district court enforcement proceedings, and district courts must independently determine whether the agency's interpretation is correct under ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court.Courts may grant pre-enforcement review of agency orders through three types of statutes: those that expressly preclude subsequent judicial review in enforcement proceedings (like the Clean Water Act), those that expressly authorize review in both contexts, and those that remain silent on enforcement proceedings (like the Hobbs Act). The Hobbs Act falls into the third category, which triggers a default rule allowing district courts to independently assess agency interpretations. The Administrative Procedure Act codifies this presumption of judicial review, stating that “agency action is subject to judicial review in civil or criminal proceedings for judicial enforcement” unless prior review was adequate and exclusive. The phrase “determine the validity” in the Hobbs Act refers specifically to entering declaratory judgments in pre-enforcement proceedings, not to the broader process of evaluating an agency interpretation's correctness in enforcement actions.The Emergency Price Control Act precedent from Yakus v United States does not control because that wartime statute contained two provisions working together: exclusive jurisdiction language plus an express prohibition against other courts considering validity. Congress chose not to include this second, prohibitive provision when enacting the Hobbs Act six years later, demonstrating its intent not to preclude enforcement-stage review. Practical concerns about potential court disagreements do not override statutory text and administrative law principles, as circuit splits followed by Supreme Court review represent the ordinary judicial process. Requiring all potentially affected parties to challenge every agency order within 60 days or lose their rights would be impractical and unfair, particularly for entities that did not exist when orders issued or had no reason to anticipate future enforcement proceedings.Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, arguing that the Hobbs Act's grant of “exclusive jurisdiction” to appellate courts to “determine the validity” of agency orders plainly precludes district courts from making such determinations in enforcement proceedings.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.

MIDDLE EAST. Updates from regional conflicts: The status of a new Gaza cease-fire proposal remains unclear this morning ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington, DC. Reports say the proposal, which Israel has accepted, includes plans for a 60-day cease-fire, the exchange of Hamas-held hostages for jailed Palestinians, increased flow of aid into Gaza, and a withdrawal of Israeli forces to a buffer zone along Gaza's borders. Israeli forces and Yemen-based Houthi rebels exchanged airstrikes early today following an attack on a Liberian-flagged ship in the Red Sea yesterday that is thought to have been carried out by the rebel group. In a video address yesterday, Hezbollah leader Naim Kassem said the militant group would not disarm until Israel withdraws from all of southern Lebanon and halts airstrikes on Hezbollah targets. UKRAINE. Today is day 1229 of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Here is your update: Hundreds of flights were disrupted at major Russian airports over the weekend, including those in Moscow and St. Petersburg, amidst Ukrainian drone strikes targeting multiple Russian regions. TEXAS. Amidst threats of further heavy rainfall, authorities in Texas say at least 82 people have died in flooding that struck central Texas along the Guadalupe River early Friday morning. Reports say the affected area received 12-14 inches of rain in the space of just hours late Thursday and early Friday, causing the river to rise 26 feet in just 45 minutes. Dozens of people, including at least 10 girls from an area summer camp, remain missing as search and rescue efforts continue. U.S. PROTESTS. A federal trial begins today in a case filed by several university associations that are challenging what they say is a Trump administration policy of arresting and deporting foreign university faculty and students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and other political activities. Plaintiffs say the government policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law that governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. U.S. SPENDING AND TAX BILL. The House of Representatives on Thursday passed, and President Donald Trump signed into law Friday, the Trump-backed, so-called "one big, beautiful bill" of spending and tax measures that includes, among other things, tax breaks, spending cuts, a rollback of solar energy tax credits, and new money for national defense and immigration enforcement. In its latest analysis, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says the measure will add nearly $3.3 trillion to the federal deficit and result in about 11.8 million more Americans becoming uninsured over the next 10 years. U.S. POLITICS. Amidst ongoing tensions with President Donald Trump over the passage of his sweeping tax and spending bill, former Department of Government Efficiency head Elon Musk has announced the formation of a new "America Party" political movement. BRICS. At the conclusion of a two-day summit, member nations of the BRICS coalition - Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the United Arab Emirates - condemned global tariff increases and the recent attacks on Iran. While the BRICS statement did not specifically mention him, U.S. President Donald Trump posted on social media late last night that any country that aligns itself with what he termed "the Anti-American policies of BRICS" would face an added 10% tariff. PAKISTAN. National emergency officials say at least 72 people have died, and more than 130 have been injured, in 10 days of heavy monsoon rains and flash floods across Pakistan. GREECE. Mandatory work breaks from midday to 5pm have been imposed today for outdoor workers in parts of Greece where temperatures are expected to reach as high as 104 degrees Fahrenheit (or 40 degrees Celsius). E.U. AND CHINA. China imposed new trade restrictions on European...

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can retailers who would sell a new tobacco product seek judicial review of the FDA's denial of a manufacturer's marketing application under the Tobacco Control Act?The case was decided on June 20, 2025. The Supreme Court held that the Tobacco Control Act's provision that “any person adversely affected” by the FDA's denial of a marketing application may seek judicial review extends to retailers who would sell the new tobacco product, not just the manufacturers who applied for approval. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 7-2 majority opinion of the Court.The phrase “adversely affected” is a term of art in administrative law that the Court has consistently interpreted broadly. When Congress uses variations of this phrase across different statutes, the Court presumes it carries the same meaning as in the Administrative Procedure Act—covering anyone “arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute.” Congress reinforced this broad interpretation by using “any person” rather than limiting review to “the applicant.” The Court's precedents from other contexts, including employment discrimination and fair housing cases, confirm that “adversely affected” encompasses more than just the direct recipient of agency action. Retailers face a direct, significant impact from denial orders because they lose the opportunity to profit from selling the product and face criminal penalties if they sell it without authorization.The statutory structure confirms Congress intended different scopes for different provisions. While the Act limits challenges to withdrawal of existing approvals to only “the holder of the application,” it uses the broader “any person adversely affected” language for initial denials. This deliberate use of materially different terms creates a presumption that Congress intended different meanings. The FDA's arguments focusing on the application process and confidentiality provisions cannot override the plain language Congress chose for the judicial review provision.Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, arguing that retailers fall outside the statute's zone of interests because the premarket approval scheme involves only manufacturers and the FDA, with no mechanism for retailer participation.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

In this episode of Passing Judgment, Jessica breaks down the Supreme Court's two most significant cases of the term. First, she examines the Court's ruling that sharply limits federal judges' ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially in the context of challenges to executive orders like those affecting birthright citizenship. The episode then moves to the Supreme Court's decision upholding Tennessee's ban on certain gender-affirming care for minors. Jessica explains how the Court sided with state power, applying a deferential standard of review, and contrasts this with the dissent's focus on equal protection for transgender youth.Here are three key takeaways you don't want to miss:Limits on Judicial Power: The Supreme Court, in a 6–3 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, ruled that federal judges generally cannot issue nationwide injunctions unless Congress clearly authorizes it. This shifts significant power dynamic back to individual cases and underscores the role of Congress in expanding judicial remedies.Nuanced Exceptions Remain: Despite the new limits, broad relief is still possible through class actions, certain state-led cases, and challenges under the Administrative Procedures Act. These pathways ensure there are still tools to address sweeping executive actions, though access is more restricted.Transgender Rights Under Scrutiny: In the Skrmetti case, the Court upheld Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for minors, framing the law as a neutral regulation based on age and medical use—not sex or transgender status. Dissenting justices warn this approach threatens protections for vulnerable groups and diminishes the judiciary's role as a check on legislative overreach.Follow Our Host: @LevinsonJessica

Among the points emphasized by the second Trump administration has been a major push for deregulation. President Trump has directed that there must be ten deregulatory actions for every one regulatory one, and put forward Presidential Memoranda and Executive Orders to that end. As some have noted, however, such deregulation can take significant time due to factors like the requirements for notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.Interestingly, an April Presidential Memorandum seems to contemplate that potential hurdle for executive actions directing repeal of regulations contrary to ten specific recent Supreme Court decisions, including without notice and comment “where appropriate.”This panel will seek to discuss the potential impact of this presidential memorandum, when deregulation may happen, incurring a need for notice & comment, and what the Judicial Branch might ultimately determine about the Executive Branch’s efforts to enforce their precedents in this manner.Featuring:John Lewis, Deputy Legal Director, Governing for ImpactJonathan Wolfson, Chief Legal Officer and Policy Director, Cicero Institute(Moderator) Craig E. Leen, Partner, K&L Gates, and Former OFCCP Director

The latest in the ongoing battle between the Trump Admin. and Harvard University includes an effort by the Trump Admin. to bar the university from using the Student and Exchange Visitor Program for not complying with their demands to supply information on student visa holders. Harvard followed up with a lawsuit against the administration for violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act, to which a federal judge temporarily blocked the Admin. from revoking Harvard's ability to enroll international students. Dan takes aim with the President's battle with Harvard and thinks he's wasting political capital. Do you agree or disagree?Listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the NEW iHeart Radio app and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!

In today's all-new episode, our hosts Renato Mariotti and Asha Rangappa discuss Trump's attempt to dismantle Voice of America, a government-funded international broadcasting agency created during World War II to counter foreign propaganda. They analyze the legal challenges to Trump's executive order, highlighting the First Amendment implications and the Administrative Procedure Act violations. Before diving in, remember to subscribe to our Patreon for exclusive insights and behind-the-scenes content: patreon.com/reallyamericanmedia. Asha kicks off the discussion by emphasizing the indispensable role Voice of America has long played in countering disinformation and delivering unbiased news around the world. Now, under the Trump administration, this vital institution is under attack—disguised as a routine executive order. Renato delves into the unfolding legal battle, explaining how this overreach not only threatens First Amendment rights but also sidesteps congressional oversight in violation of established law. The conversation then expands as Renato and Asha examine Trump's persistent pattern of undermining key institutions. His assault on Voice of America is just one front in a broader campaign—one that has also targeted agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—eroding the checks and balances that hold our government accountable. Asha warns that such unilateral decisions create dangerous vulnerabilities in our democratic framework. Moving into in-depth legal analysis, our hosts question whether these executive actions effectively usurp Congress's legislative authority and destabilize the separation of powers essential to our democracy. They examine the societal fallout from unchecked executive overreach and lay bare the threat posed to the core values that guide our nation. In a notable twist, the episode highlights an emerging legal precedent. A Reagan-appointed judge recently blocked Trump's action via an injunction—revealing deep tensions within the judiciary as it grapples with the limits of executive power. The subsequent appeal and full court review underscore both the urgency and the high stakes involved, with the livelihoods of over 1,300 journalists hanging in the balance. Wrapping up, the discussion widens to the global stage. Voice of America is not just a news outlet; it symbolizes America's unwavering commitment to truth and free speech. The attempt to silence it represents a serious blow to our nation's reputation as a defender of democracy worldwide. Renato and Asha passionately call for vigilance and collective action. They urge every branch of government—and all of us—to stand up for democratic principles and resist efforts to curtail our freedoms. Their incisive exploration of these legal and political battles reminds us that democracy thrives on transparency and accountability. Don't miss this crucial episode as Renato and Asha dive deep into the pressing issues threatening our media landscape and democratic institutions. Join the discussion and subscribe for more thought-provoking conversations on the topics that matter most. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Salmon P. Chase DiesOn May 7, 1873, Salmon P. Chase—former Chief Justice of the United States and one of the most prominent legal minds of his generation—died at the age of 65. Chase was a towering figure in antebellum legal and political life, best known for his ardent antislavery positions and constitutional rigor. A fierce abolitionist, he earned the nickname “Attorney General for Runaway Slaves” for his pro bono work defending fugitives in Ohio. Decades before the Civil War, Chase and Abraham Lincoln had crossed paths not as allies, but as legal adversaries. In an 1855 Illinois case—Effie Afton v. Rock Island Bridge Company—Chase represented steamboat interests, while Lincoln defended the nascent railroad industry; the trial featured two future titans on opposite sides of a commercial dispute that mirrored the country's growing sectional divisions.Despite their early courtroom rivalry and later competing candidacies for the 1860 Republican presidential nomination, Lincoln recognized Chase's legal acumen and political influence. He appointed him Secretary of the Treasury, where Chase proved instrumental in financing the Union war effort and creating a national banking system. Ever ambitious, Chase maneuvered politically from within Lincoln's cabinet, seeking the presidency even as he served. In 1864, Lincoln elevated Chase to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, where he presided over pivotal Reconstruction-era cases and the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson.As Chief Justice, Chase dissented in Bradwell v. Illinois and the Slaughter-House Cases, signaling a broader vision for the Fourteenth Amendment than the Court ultimately embraced. His dissents advocated for civil rights and economic fairness at a time when the Court was beginning to retreat from radical Reconstruction. Chase died on May 7, 1873, after collapsing in New York, ending a career that spanned law, finance, politics, and constitutional interpretation.A federal judge struck down an executive order by President Donald Trump targeting the law firm Perkins Coie, ruling it violated the First Amendment and due process protections. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found the order to be retaliatory, noting it was motivated by the firm's past legal work and its association with political opponents, including Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. The ruling relied heavily on Trump's own public comments—more than 20 of which were cited in the lawsuit—including social media posts and statements made during official events. These remarks, spanning from 2017 through his current term, were used to show the administration's intent to punish the firm for its perceived political stance.Trump's directive revoked security clearances for the firm's lawyers, blocked federal contracts, and limited their access to government officials. Howell emphasized that the problem wasn't Trump's personal criticisms but the official actions taken against the firm based on those views. The case illustrates how Trump's characteristic unfiltered commentary undermined legal defenses by revealing the political motivations behind executive actions. Howell also cited similar coercive behavior toward other major law firms, some of which made significant concessions to avoid being targeted. Legal experts noted that this ruling could influence outcomes in related cases involving other firms.How Trump's own words helped him lose a fight with law firm Perkins Coie | ReutersSamsung Electronics announced that its subsidiary, Harman International, will acquire the audio business of U.S.-based Masimo for $350 million. The move is aimed at bolstering Samsung's position in the global consumer audio market, which is projected to grow from $60.8 billion in 2025 to $70 billion by 2029. The company emphasized that integrating Masimo's audio operations with Harman will enhance its sound technology offerings and create synergies across its mobile, TV, and home appliance divisions. The deal aligns with Samsung's broader strategy to pursue significant mergers and acquisitions to address investor concerns and drive growth. Samsung reaffirmed its commitment to delivering concrete M&A outcomes during its annual shareholder meeting in March.Samsung Electronics says unit Harman acquires Masimo's audio business for $350 mln | ReutersA growing number of wealthy defendants are pursuing pardons from President Donald Trump, some spending over $1 million on legal teams, lobbyists, and consultants to improve their chances. The pardon process under Trump's second term has become informal and politically charged, with access and loyalty appearing to play major roles in who receives clemency. Business figures such as Trevor Milton, founder of Nikola Corp., have successfully received pardons after building political connections, contributing to Trump's campaign, and framing their prosecutions as examples of a weaponized justice system.Traditional channels for clemency through the Justice Department have largely been bypassed, replaced by direct appeals to the White House and advocacy from influential allies. Lawyers well-connected to Trump's circle are reportedly charging premium fees to prepare pardon bids. High-profile figures including crypto executives Sam Bankman-Fried and Roger Ver, as well as media entrepreneur Carlos Watson, have sought or secured relief through this unofficial route. Trump's administration claims it is correcting injustices, but critics argue the system now favors those with money and political ties.Lawyers Are Quoting $1 Million in Fees to Get Pardons to TrumpA federal judge in Rhode Island has blocked the Trump administration from proceeding with layoffs at three small federal agencies, issuing a preliminary injunction against a March 14 executive order that aimed to eliminate or drastically reduce the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS), the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), and the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA). Chief Judge John McConnell ruled that the order was likely unlawful, calling it “arbitrary and capricious” and in conflict with the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing Congress's authority to make laws and allocate funding.The coalition of states challenging the order argued the closures would cause immediate harm, and McConnell agreed, noting that MBDA had essentially been reduced to zero staff, making it impossible to administer its programs. The ruling rejected the administration's claim that the harms were merely speculative and emphasized that irreparable harm had already occurred. The judge also denied a request by the Trump administration to delay enforcement of the injunction. The legal fight is ongoing, but the decision represents a significant obstacle to Trump's broader efforts to restructure the federal government by executive order.Trump Must Halt Layoffs at Three Small Agencies, Judge Says (1) This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Web: www.JonesHealthLaw.comPhone: (305)877-5054Instagram: @JonesHealthLawFacebook: @JonesHealthLawYouTube: @JonesHealthLawEquitable tolling is a legal doctrine that can be used as a remedy in limited circumstances to extend filing deadlines.The Legislature usually lacks leniency when it comes to timely filings, so the only equitable defense under Ch. 120 Administrative Procedure Act is the Doctrine of Equitable Tolling. This means that petitions that are filed after the 21 day time period are usually considered a waiver of rights to an administrative hearing unless this defense applies.

Tristan dives into Harvard University's landmark lawsuit against the Trump administration. As the stock markets head for their worst April since 1932, Tristan examines how Harvard is fighting back against what it sees as unconstitutional government overreach threatening academic freedom and free speech. The episode breaks down the legal arguments on both sides, focusing on First Amendment protections and Administrative Procedure Act violations, while explaining why this case represents a critical moment in the ongoing struggle between higher education institutions and a government Tristan characterizes as seeking political retribution. Beyond Harvard's $53 billion endowment and legal position, Tristan explores the broader implications for research universities nationwide and what's at stake for American scientific advancement if federal funding to these institutions is threatened.

Our podcast show being released today is Part 1 of a repurposed interactive webinar that we presented on March 24, featuring two of the leading journalists who cover the CFPB - Jon Hill from Law360 and Evan Weinberger from Bloomberg. Our show began with Jon and Evan chronicling the initiatives beginning on February 3 by CFPB Acting Directors Scott Bessent, Russell Vought and DOGE to shut down or at least minimize the CFPB. These initiatives were met with two federal district court lawsuits (one in DC brought by the labor unions who represents CFPB employees who were terminated and the other brought in Baltimore, MD by the CFPB and others) challenging one or more of these initiatives. Jon and Evan described the lawsuits in detail. While the Baltimore lawsuit was dismissed on the basis of lack of ripeness under the Administrative Procedure Act, Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a TRO freezing the CFPB from terminating more CFPB employees through the end of March while she decides whether to enter a further injunction with respect to the CFPB's initiatives. Ballard Spahr partners, Rich Andreano and John Culhane, then gave an up-to-date status report on CFPB (a) final rules being challenged in litigation and/or eligible to be challenged under the Congressional Review Act; (b) final rules not being challenged in litigation which may be repealed or amended or whose effective or compliance dates may be extended under the Administrative Procedure Act; (c) proposed rules; and (d) non-rule written guidance. Rich and John paid particular attention to the following final rules: 1.  The Small Business Loan Data Collection and Reporting Rule under Section 1071 of      Dodd-Frank 2.  The Non-bank enforcement order Registry Rule 3.  The Fair Credit Reporting Act “Data Broker” Rule 4.  The Residential Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Financing Rule 5.  The Residential Mortgage Servicing Proposed Rule 6.  Credit Card Penalty fees under Reg Z (Late Fee Rule) 7. Personal Financial Data Rights (Open Banking) Rule under Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank 8.  Overdraft Lending Rule Applicable to very large financial institutions 9. Prohibition on creditors and consumer reporting agencies reporting medical debt under Reg V Part 1 of our podcast concludes with Rich and John describing the fact that supervision and examination of banks and non-banks is apparently on hold. This podcast show was hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, the former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group and now Senior Counsel.

Our special podcast show today deals primarily with a 112-page opinion and 3-page order issued on March 28 by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a lawsuit brought, among others, by two labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The complaint alleged that Acting Director Vought and others were in the process of dismantling the CFPB through various actions taken since Rohit Chopra was fired and replaced by Acting Director Scott Bessent and then Acting Director Russell Vought. This process included, among other things, the termination of probationary and term employees and possibly another 1,300 or so employees through a reduction-in-force , the issuance of a stop work order, the closure of the CFPB's main office in DC and branch offices throughout the country, the termination of most third-party contracts, the decision not to request any additional funding from the Federal Reserve Board for the balance of the fiscal year and the voluntary dismissal of several enforcement lawsuits. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and Joseph Schuster, a Partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group, discuss each part of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Jackson which, among other things, required the CFPB to re-hire all probationary and term employees who had been terminated, prohibited the CFPB from terminating any CFPB employee except for just cause (which apparently does not include lack of work because of the change in focus and direction of the CFPB), required the CFPB not to enforce a previous “stop work” order or reduction-in-force.  We observed that Judge Jackson's order has required the CFPB to maintain for now a work force that is not needed for the “new” CFPB. We also discuss that the preliminary injunction order does not require the CFPB to maintain any of the regulations promulgated or proposed by Rohit Chopra or to continue to prosecute any of the enforcement lawsuits brought by Director Chopra. DOJ filed a notice of appeal on March 29 and on March 31 filed a motion in the DC Court of Appeals to stay Judge Jackson's order. (After the recording of this podcast, the DOJ filed in the Court of Appeals a motion seeking a stay of Judge Jackson's order. Pending a hearing on April 9th, the Court issued an administrative stay of Judge Jackson's order. The 3-Judge panel is composed of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee.) A copy of the blog co-authored by Alan and Joseph is linked here. We also discuss another lawsuit initiated by the City of Baltimore and one other plaintiff against Acting Director Vought in Federal District Court for the District of Maryland seeking to enjoin him from returning to the Federal Reserve Board or the Treasury funds held by the CFPB. The Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction on the basis that it was not ripe for adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act because the CFPB never actually returned any funds. Finally, Alan expresses surprise that the Acting Director has not relied on the argument that all funds received by the CFPB after September, 2022 were unlawfully obtained because the Dodd-Frank Act stipulates that the CFPB can be funded only out of “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” and the fact that there have only been huge combined losses of the Federal Reserve Banks since Sept 2022 which continue through today and are likely to continue through the foreseeable future.

Today's podcast show features a discussion with David Dayen, executive editor of the American Prospect, which is an online magazine about ideas, politics, and power. He's the author of “Chain of Title: How Three Ordinary Americans Uncovered Wall Street's Great Foreclosure Fraud,” which was published in 2016. David has written and published about 10 or so articles in which he chronicles in great detail the apparent effort by the Trump Administration, acting through Scott Bessent and Russell Vought, to dismantle the CFPB by abruptly ordering a cessation of all activities and layoffs of probationary and term employees and a plan to layoff 1,300 or so additional employees. Because this plan would have crippled the CFPB, two lawsuits were initiated in rapid fashion against Acting Director Vought seeking to enjoin him from pursuing this strategy. One lawsuit was brought by the two labor unions representing CFPB employees and others in the I.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and got assigned to Judge Amy Berman Jackson. The second lawsuit was brought by the City of Baltimore and others in the U.S. District Coury for the District of Maryland. David describes in detail the case pending before Judge Jackson, including the hearings at which several CFPB employees testified. Those employees painted a very grim picture of the effort to shut down the agency. The DOJ lawyer stated that there was never an intent to shut down the CFPB and that the steps taken by the Acting Directors to “freeze” the CFPB were similar to steps taken by any new Administration in order to provide time to evaluate the situation and decide what changes should be made to reflect the new Administration's policy objectives. Shortly after the recording of this podcast, Judge Jackson issued on March 28 a 112-page opinion and 3-page order in which she required the reinstatement with back pay of all CFPB employees that had been terminated, enjoined the CFPB from terminating any employees except for good cause related to the individual employee, fully maintain the consumer complaint portal, ordered the defendants to reinstate all third-party contracts which had been earlier terminated, ordered the defendants to not enforce a February 10 stop-work order and required that the CFPB not destroy any records. The defendants have filed a notice of appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 29. On March 31, the defendants filed a motion in the Court of Appests to stay Judge Jackson's order. See this blog for more detail about Judge Jackson's opinion. Because of the importance of Judge Jackson's opinion, Alan Kaplinsky and Joseph Schuster have recorded a special (additional) podcast show, where we dissected Judge Jackson's opinion and order and the other lawsuit brought by the City of Baltimore against Acting Director, Russell Vought, challenging his consideration of returning operating finds to the Federal Reserve Board or Treasury. That podcast will be released tomorrow, Friday, April 4. The Judge in the City of Baltimore case, in which the plaintiffs had not established nearly as complete a record as the case before Judge Jackson, denied the motion for a preliminary injunction based on the Court's belief that there was no final order which could be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act. We also discussed the possibility that Congress could subject the CFPB to funding through Congressional appropriations by putting such language in the Budget Reconciliation bill which can be enacted by a simple majority and not 60 votes in the Senare. Alan Kaplinsky, former Chair for 25 years and now Senior Counsel of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Was the Food and Drug Administration's orders denying respondents' applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act?The case was decided on April 2, 2025The Court unanimously held that the FDA's decisions were neither arbitrary nor capricious. Specifically, the Court agreed with the FDA's assessment that the manufacturers failed to demonstrate that the benefits of their flavored products to adult smokers outweighed the risks to youth. This ruling reversed a prior decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had found the FDA's denials unwarranted. The Supreme Court's decision underscores the FDA's authority to regulate tobacco products, particularly those appealing to younger audiences, in line with public health objectives. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

As I sit here on March 31, 2025, reflecting on the whirlwind of legal battles surrounding former President Donald Trump, it's hard to believe how much has unfolded in just the past few days. The courts have been buzzing with activity, and the nation remains captivated by every twist and turn.Let's start with the New York case, where Trump was found guilty of 34 felony counts of falsifying business records back in May 2024. Just a few months ago, on January 10, 2025, Justice Juan Merchan sentenced Trump to unconditional discharge. It was a surprising outcome that left many legal experts scratching their heads.Meanwhile, the federal cases against Trump took an unexpected turn after he won the 2024 presidential election. Both cases were dismissed, with the Southern District of Florida case being thrown out by Judge Aileen Cannon on July 15, 2024. She ruled that Special Counsel Jack Smith was improperly appointed and funded. The Justice Department initially appealed but ultimately dismissed the appeal against Trump on November 29, 2024.The District of Columbia case met a similar fate. After the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the district court in August 2024, Judge Tanya Chutkan granted the government's unopposed motion to dismiss on December 6, 2024. It was a stunning reversal of fortune for Trump, who had faced serious charges related to his actions surrounding the 2020 election.But the legal drama doesn't end there. Just last week, on March 24, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in a case known as J.G.G. et al. v. Donald Trump et al. The details of this case are still emerging, but it's clear that Trump's legal battles are far from over.In recent days, we've seen a flurry of activity in various courts across the country. Cities and counties are challenging Trump's executive orders on immigration and sanctuary cities. San Francisco filed a complaint on February 7, 2025, arguing that Trump's actions violate multiple constitutional provisions and the Administrative Procedure Act.Meanwhile, immigrant advocacy groups have filed lawsuits challenging Trump's policies on migrant transfers and refugee admissions. It's a dizzying array of legal challenges that shows no signs of slowing down.Perhaps most surprisingly, we've witnessed what some are calling "The Great Grovel" – elite institutions capitulating to Trump's demands in an effort to avoid his ire. Law firms like Paul, Weiss and Skadden Arps have pledged millions in pro bono legal services to Trump-supported causes. It's a stark reminder of the power Trump still wields, even as he faces ongoing legal challenges.As we move forward, it's clear that the courts will continue to play a crucial role in shaping Trump's legacy and the future of American politics. With each passing day, new developments emerge, keeping the nation on the edge of its seat. One thing's for certain: the legal saga of Donald Trump is far from over.

Sarah Isgur and David French discuss the Supreme Court's ruling to uphold the the ban on ghost guns. Is it really about the Second Amendment? Sarah and David are then joined by Gregg Costa—partner at Gibson Dunn and former Fifth Circuit judge—to explain the issue with universal injunctions and forum shopping. The Agenda: —I ain't afraid of no ghost (gun) —A big week for Justice Neil Gorsuch —Mens rea and regulation —False vs. misleading —$660 million, baby —Judiciary is politicized —Administrative Procedure Act and universal injunctions —Predicting SCOTUS outcomes Show Notes: —Gregg Costa's podcast: A View from the Bench Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

After serving for nearly 18 months as the Department of Defense's first-ever customer experience officer in the Office of the CIO, Savan Kong earlier this month parted ways with the Pentagon. Previously a member of the Defense Digital Service during his first tour of duty with the DOD, Kong helped build the department's CXO office from scratch, fostering a culture that prioritizes the needs of service members, civilians, and mission partners and striving to streamline governance processes, improve transparency, and ensure that IT solutions meet operational needs. Kong joins the Daily Scoop for a conversation to share the progress his office ushered in to improve customer experience for DOD's personnel, where things are headed under this administration and how AI will impact the CX space. FedRAMP is getting another overhaul, one that will involve far more automation and a greater role for the private sector, the program's chief announced Monday. Through FedRAMP 20x, the General Services Administration-based team focused on the program aims to simplify the authorization process and reduce the amount of time needed to approve a service from months to weeks, Director Pete Waterman said during an Alliance for Digital Innovation event. The private sector will also have increased responsibility over monitoring of their systems, he noted. In a critical change, agency sponsorship will — eventually — no longer be necessary to win authorization. As a first step, FedRAMP has launched four community working groups, which give the public a chance to share feedback, and focus on creating “innovative solutions” to formalize the program's standards. But in the meantime, Waterman said existing baselines will remain in place and there are no immediate changes to the program. The Office of Personnel Management and the departments of Treasury and Education are now barred from sharing individuals' personally identifiable information with DOGE representatives, a federal judge ruled Monday. Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland said in her decision that in granting associates with Elon Musk's so-called government efficiency initiative access to systems containing plaintiffs' PII, the agencies “likely violated” the Privacy Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The lawsuit was filed by the American Federation of Teachers, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, the National Federation of Federal Employees, and six military veterans. The Daily Scoop Podcast is available every Monday-Friday afternoon. If you want to hear more of the latest from Washington, subscribe to The Daily Scoop Podcast  on Apple Podcasts, Soundcloud, Spotify and YouTube.

  The Friday Five for March 7, 2025: Starbucks and Dunkin' Spring 2025 Menus Amazon Announces Alexa+ Changes to MA and Part D Disaster/Emergency SEP Effects of ACA Subsidy Expiration by Demographic Clarification on HHS Proposed Rule Comment Periods   Starbucks and Dunkin' Spring 2025 Menus: Beams, Sophia. “Dunkin' Brings Back Two Fan-Favorite Drinks Just in Time for Spring.” Bhg.Com, Better Homes & Gardens, 5 Mar. 2025, www.bhg.com/dunkin-spring-menu-2025-11690288. Tyko, Kelly. “Dunkin' Spring Menu Launches, Nondairy Surcharge Removed.” Axios.Com, Axios, 5 Mar. 2025, www.axios.com/2025/03/05/dunkin-spring-menu-2025-dunkalatte-pistachio-coffee. “New Iced Cherry Chai Joins Lavender Drinks on Starbucks Spring Menu.” About.Starbucks.Com, Starbucks, 3 Mar. 2025, about.starbucks.com/stories/2025/new-iced-cherry-chai-joins-lavender-drinks-on-starbucks-spring-menu/. Palan, Michael. “We Tried Starbucks' New Spring Menu Items, and These 2 Drinks Stole the Show.” Tastingtable.Com, Tasting Table, 3 Mar. 2025, www.tastingtable.com/1801587/starbucks-reserve-new-spring-menu-2025-drinks-food/.   Amazon Announces Alexa+: “50 Things to Try with Alexa+.” Aboutamazon.Comt, Amazon, 26 Feb. 2025, www.aboutamazon.com/news/devices/new-alexa-top-features. Haselton, Todd, et al. “Amazon Alexa Event Live Blog: All the News from the Keynote.” Theverge.Com, The Verge, 26 Feb. 2025, www.theverge.com/news/618261/amazon-alexa-event-live-blog-2025. Panay, Panos. “Introducing Alexa+, the next Generation of Alexa.” Aboutamazon.Com, Amazon, 26 Feb. 2025, www.aboutamazon.com/news/devices/new-alexa-generative-artificial-intelligence. Diaz, Maria. “Not All Echo Devices Will Get Alexa+ Initially - See If Yours Made the List.” Zdnet.Com, ZDNET, 28 Feb. 2025, www.zdnet.com/article/alexa-plus-will-run-on-select-echo-devices-see-if-yours-is-on-the-list/. Ellis, Cat. “Want to Try Alexa+? Here Are the Echo Devices It'll Work On.” Techradar.Com, TechRadar, 27 Feb. 2025, www.techradar.com/home/smart-speakers/want-to-try-alexa-plus-here-are-the-echo-devices-itll-work-on. Aten, Jason. “With Its AI-Powered Alexa+, Amazon Just Put Apple on Notice.” Inc.Com, Inc, 26 Feb. 2025, www.inc.com/jason-aten/with-its-ai-powered-alexa-plus-amazon-just-put-apple-on-notice/91153371. Stanley, Alyse. “You Can Get Alexa+ Early — Here's How to Sign up.” Tomsguide.Com, Tom's Guide, 1 Mar. 2025, www.tomsguide.com/ai/you-can-get-alexa-early-heres-how-to-sign-up.   Changes to MA and Part D Disaster/Emergency SEP: Crowe, Edward. “New Medicare FEMA SEP Rules.” Pfsinsurance.Com, Pinnacle Financial Services, 29 Jan. 2025, pfsinsurance.com/blog/new-medicare-fema-sep-rules-crowe-associates. “Change to Beneficiary Use of the SEP for Individuals Affected by a Government Entity-Declared Disaster or Other Emergency.” Cms.Gov, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 3 Dec. 2024, 20178637.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/20178637/42%20ea%20-%20Product%20Profile.pdf.   Effects of ACA Subsidy Expiration by Demographic: Lambrew, Jeanne. “Enhanced ACA Marketplace Tax Credits Worked—And Shouldn't Be Eliminated.” Tcf.Org, The Century Foundation, 7 Aug. 2024, tcf.org/content/commentary/enhanced-aca-marketplace-tax-credits-worked-and-shouldnt-be-eliminated/. Richards, Carson, and Sara  R. Collins. “Enhanced Premium Tax Credits for ACA Health Plans: Who They Help, and Who Gets Hurt If They're Not Extended.” Commonwealthfund.Org, Commonwealth Fund, 18 Feb. 2025, www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/explainer/2025/feb/enhanced-premium-tax-credits-aca-health-plans. Sullivan, Jennifer. “Enhanced Tax Credits Keep ACA Marketplace Coverage Affordable for 2025.” Cbpp.Org, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 18 Nov. 2024, www.cbpp.org/blog/enhanced-tax-credits-keep-aca-marketplace-coverage-affordable-for-2025. “How Much More Would People Pay in Premiums If the ACA's Enhanced Subsidies Expired?” Kff.Org, KFF, 18 Dec. 2024, https://www.kff.org/interactive/how-much-more-would-people-pay-in-premiums-if-the-acas-enhanced-subsidies-expired/ Ortaliza, Jared, et al. “Inflation Reduction Act Health Insurance Subsidies: What Is Their Impact and What Would Happen If They Expire?” Kff.Org, KFF, 26 July 2024, www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/issue-brief/inflation-reduction-act-health-insurance-subsidies-what-is-their-impact-and-what-would-happen-if-they-expire/. Banthin, Jessica, et al. “Who Benefits from Enhanced Premium Tax Credits in the Marketplace?” Urban.Org, Urban Institute, June 2024, www.urban.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/Who_Benefits_from_Enhanced_Premium_Tax_Credits_in_the_Marketplace.pdf. Lo, Justin, and Cynthia Cox. “Who Might Lose Eligibility for Affordable Care Act Marketplace Subsidies If Enhanced Tax Credits Are Not Extended?” Kff.Com, KFF, 28 Feb. 2025, www.kff.org/policy-watch/who-might-lose-eligibility-for-affordable-care-act-marketplace-subsidies-if-enhanced-tax-credits-are-not-extended/.   Clarification on HHS Proposed Rule Comment Periods: “Compilation of the Social Security Laws.” Ssa.Gov, Social Security Administration, www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1871.htm. Accessed 5 Mar. 2025. “HHS Rescinds Policy Regarding Notice-and-Comment Rulemaking – Implications for Health Care Industry.” Www.Hoganlovells.Com, Hogan Lovells, 3 Mar. 2025, www.hoganlovells.com/en/publications/hhs-rescinds-policy-regarding-noticeandcomment-rulemaking-implications-for-health-care-industry. “Policy on Adhering to the Text of the Administrative Procedure Act.” Federalregister.Gov, Federal Register, 3 Mar. 2025, www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/03/03/2025-03300/policy-on-adhering-to-the-text-of-the-administrative-procedure-act. Goldman, Maya. “RFK Jr. Move to Kill Public Comment Roils Providers.” Axios.Com, Axios, 3 Mar. 2025, www.axios.com/2025/03/03/rfk-transparency-rule-elimination-fallout. Cueto, Isabella. “RFK Jr. Moves to Eliminate Public Comment on HHS Decisions.” Statnews.Com, STAT, 28 Feb. 2025, www.statnews.com/2025/02/28/rfk-jr-eliminating-public-comment-hhs-decisions-richardson-waiver/. Muoio, Dave. “RFK Jr. Orders HHS to End ‘extra-Statutory' Notice, Public Comment Process in Rulemaking.” Fiercehealthcare.Com, Fierce Healthcare, 3 Mar. 2025, www.fiercehealthcare.com/regulatory/rfk-jr-orders-hhs-end-notice-public-comment-process-rulemaking. Howe, Amy. “Supreme Court Strikes down Chevron, Curtailing Power of Federal Agencies.” Scotusblog.Com, SCOTUSblog, 26 July 2024, www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/.   Resources: Diversify Your Insurance Portfolio & Reap Real Rewards: https://lnk.to/asg651 FAQs About Registering with Ritter Insurance Marketing: https://ritterim.com/blog/faqs-about-registering-with-ritter-insurance-marketing/   How To Better Market Yourself: https://ritterim.com/blog/how-to-better-market-yourself/   Medicare Advantage Open Enrollment Do's and Don'ts: https://lnk.to/oRft1p SNP Summit Registration is Live: https://lnk.to/asgf20250228   Follow Us on Social! Ritter on Facebook, https://www.facebook.com/RitterIM Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/ritter.insurance.marketing/ LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/company/ritter-insurance-marketing TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/@ritterim X, https://x.com/RitterIM and Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/user/RitterInsurance     Sarah on LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/in/sjrueppel/ Instagram, https://www.instagram.com/thesarahjrueppel/ and Threads, https://www.threads.net/@thesarahjrueppel  Tina on LinkedIn, https://www.linkedin.com/in/tina-lamoreux-6384b7199/   Not affiliated with or endorsed by Medicare or any government agency. Contact the Agent Survival Guide Podcast! Email us ASGPodcast@Ritterim.com or call 1-717-562-7211 and leave a voicemail.

Two weeks after being sworn in, last Friday HHS Secretary Robert Kennedy announced, “effectively immediately, the [1971] Richardson Waiver is rescinded and is no longer policy of the Department.” He explained his decision by stating “the extra-statutory obligations of the Richardson Waiver impose costs on the Department and the public, are contrary to the efficient operation of the Department, and impede the Department's flexibility to adapt quickly to legal and policy mandates. “ The waiver, issued by President Nixon's HEW Secretary, Elliot Richardson, effectively meant HHS would use the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act's “notice of proposed rule making” (NPRM) process broadly and its “good cause” exception sparingly. (The APA essentially governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulatory rules.) Secretary Kennedy rescinded the waiver citing APA language that exempts rule making, effectively public input, from matters “relating to agency management or personnel or to public policy, loans, grants, benefits or contracts” and permits departments to forgo public comment for “good cause” or when the procedure is “impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to the public interest.” Though Secretary Kennedy's decision will almost certainly be challenged in court, in the near term HHS can make significant, and now unquestioned, regulatory changes to, for example, the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Sec. Kennedy's one page, March 3 Federal Register notice is at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-03-03/pdf/2025-03300.pdf. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.thehealthcarepolicypodcast.com

The balance of power in American democracy is being tested like never before. In this episode Rick is joined by legal expert and author Tristan Snell to discuss the latest legal battles surrounding Trump, the Supreme Court's role in shaping executive power, and the broader implications for American democracy. They break down key cases, including the limits of presidential immunity, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the growing constitutional crisis if Trump defies court rulings. Visit Tristan's Substack at tristansnell.com. Timestamps: (00:01:26) Watching the legal battles unfold (00:10:59) What happens when Trump denies a court order? (00:20:24) The protection of executive action Follow Resolute Square: Instagram Twitter TikTok Find out more at Resolute Square Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The discussion covered various topics, including a lawsuit filed by 19 states against Trump and Elon Musk for accessing Treasury Department records. The lawsuit, filed by Attorney General Letitia James, claims the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act and the Take Care Clause. The court granted a temporary restraining order, barring access to sensitive information. The panel debated the constitutionality of the order and suggested filing ethics charges against the judge. Additionally, they discussed Trump's recent actions, such as ending the USAID program and offering asylum to persecuted South African farmers. The conversation also touched on the Super Bowl, with opinions on the game and halftime show.

This Day in Legal History: 25th Amendment to the US Constitution On February 10, 1967, the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified, establishing clear procedures for presidential succession and addressing concerns about vacancies in the executive branch. The amendment was a response to historical ambiguities in presidential succession, particularly after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Prior to its ratification, the Constitution provided little guidance on what to do if a president became incapacitated. The amendment formally allowed the vice president to assume the presidency if the president died, resigned, or was removed from office. It also established a process for filling a vacant vice presidency, a critical change since several vice presidents had died or resigned without a designated replacement mechanism. Additionally, it provided a procedure for a president to temporarily transfer power to the vice president, such as in cases of medical procedures. The amendment's fourth section allowed for the removal of a president deemed unable to discharge the duties of the office, though this provision has never been invoked. The first use of the amendment came in 1973 when Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned, and President Nixon appointed Gerald Ford as his replacement. The amendment was invoked again in 1974 when Nixon resigned, making Ford the first unelected president in U.S. history. Since then, the temporary transfer of power provision has been used several times for medical reasons, including during surgeries for Presidents Reagan, George W. Bush, and Biden. The 25th Amendment remains a critical safeguard, ensuring stability and continuity in the executive branch.A federal judge has temporarily blocked Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency from accessing certain Treasury Department data and ordered the destruction of information already obtained. The ruling follows a lawsuit filed by 19 Democratic-led states against President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, alleging that allowing Musk's team access to personal financial data violates federal law. The judge found the states likely to succeed on the merits and cited risks of data exposure and hacking. The lawsuit argues that the administration implemented the policy without public explanation or a privacy impact assessment, violating the Administrative Procedure Act. The order prevents Treasury from granting access to unqualified individuals and mandates background checks for those with clearance. Meanwhile, a separate lawsuit filed by unions has also led to a temporary restriction on access to Treasury systems. The White House defended DOGE's role as a government efficiency initiative, while critics, including Senator Ron Wyden, accused the administration of misleading Congress about the extent of Musk's involvement. A hearing is set for February 14 to determine whether a longer injunction will be issued.Musk's DOGE Blocked From Treasury Data in State AGs Lawsuit (1)The Justice Department is shifting resources from traditional priorities like counterterrorism and white-collar crime to focus on immigration enforcement under President Trump. Prosecutors are being reassigned to border districts, and the FBI's joint terrorism task forces have been directed to assist with immigration initiatives. Additionally, US Marshals and DEA agents now have the authority to make immigration arrests. Attorney General Pam Bondi has ordered investigations into sanctuary jurisdictions and instructed DOJ units to prioritize foreign bribery cases linked to cartels over other white-collar crimes. Critics, including congressional Democrats, warn that diverting resources in this way could increase crime and weaken national security. Legal experts argue that pulling experienced prosecutors for immigration cases carries a steep opportunity cost, while counterterrorism specialists say their methods are not suited for handling migration. The move reflects a broader effort by the Trump administration to maximize the DOJ's role in immigration enforcement early in the new term, learning from past efforts to reshape asylum law and border policies.Border Focus Pulls DOJ Resources From Terrorism, White CollarA U.S. judge will soon decide whether President Trump's buyout offer to two million federal workers can proceed. The plan, which offers employees pay through September if they resign now, has been challenged by federal workers' unions, arguing that Congress has not approved funding for it. Overseen by Elon Musk and his newly created Department of Government Efficiency, the initiative is part of Trump's broader effort to downsize the federal government. Democrats and unions have raised concerns over Musk's growing influence and DOGE's access to sensitive government data. While 65,000 employees have reportedly accepted the buyout, unions warn that the administration may not honor the deal. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has already faced shutdown-like actions, with staff ordered to stop work and the agency temporarily closed. Meanwhile, Trump has hinted at further cuts, including in the Pentagon, as legal challenges continue to mount against his sweeping restructuring efforts.Judge to review Trump's buyout offer to government workers | ReutersThe Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has been effectively shut down under the leadership of acting chief Russell Vought, who ordered staff to halt all regulatory activities and cut the agency's funding. The move eliminates federal oversight of financial companies, drawing sharp criticism from consumer advocates and Democratic lawmakers. The National Treasury Employees Union sued to block Vought's actions, arguing they undermine Congress' authority. Critics also raised concerns about Elon Musk's involvement, as his Department of Government Efficiency has gained administrative access to CFPB systems, despite Musk's business interests in the financial sector. Agency employees and unions accuse Musk of trying to take control of his own regulator. Vought also ordered the agency's headquarters to close for a week and shut down public communications. The shutdown is part of Trump and Musk's broader effort to restructure the federal government, prompting legal challenges and public protests.Consumer protection agency neutralized by Trump's new chief | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This week: more firings — dozens of DOJ line prosecutors who worked on January 6 cases. Trump's flurry of executive actions has drawn a flurry of litigation, much of it related to the Administrative Procedure Act. States and grantees are suing to stop the OMB funding pause, and finding success so far. Unions representing government workers are suing Elon Musk's access to their information. Several anonymous FBI agents are even suing to stop disclosure to Trump officials of which cases they worked on, and a lawsuit fighting Trump's executive order defunding grants related to DEI. The actions of the DOGE team seem like they might be illegal on several dimensions, and we discuss threats from acting US Attorney Ed Martin to bring bogus investigations against people who commit offenses like disclosing the names of people who work for Elon Musk.Finally, we take a look at the assist the FCC is giving Trump as he seeks to shake down Paramount, and we recognize another recipient of the Senate Twink Memorial Award for Belatedly Good Judgment. Head over to serioustrouble.show to find an episode transcript and sign up for our newsletter. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.serioustrouble.show/subscribe

Thank you for joining us for another episode of the Low Carb MD Podcast. Dr. Mary Bowden is an otolaryngologist and sleep medicine specialist in Houston, Texas, who treated over 6,000 COVID patients during the pandemic. Her vast experience prompted her to become a fierce advocate for early treatment. After the FDA spread misinformation about ivermectin, she and Drs. Paul Marik and Robert Apter successfully sued them, forcing the agency to delete several misleading social media posts and web pages. Houston was ground zero for the COVID-19 shot mandates, and Dr. Bowden was an early outspoken critic. The first hospital in the country to implement mandates, Houston Methodist, suspended her privileges and reported her to the Texas Medical Board in response to her tweeting, “Vaccine mandates are wrong.” The ensuing attacks prompted her to fight back, and she founded a nonprofit, Americans for Health Freedom, whose foundational project is to enlist politicians and other doctors to call for the COVID shots to be pulled off the market.  In this episode, Drs. Brian, Tro, and Mary talk about… (00:00) Intro (03:23) The governmental attack on effective, affordable treatments for Covid during the vaccine rollout (11:23) The data supporting the usage of Ivermectin as a safe and effective treatment for Covid (13:47) The lawsuit filed by Dr. Bowden and other doctors against the FDA for interfering with their ability to practice medicine by overstepping their authority and violating the Administrative Procedure Act (17:42) Why Dr. Bowden decided she had to sue the FDA (27:02) Medical ethics, speaking out for the truth, and standing up to corruption (35:59) The quality of research for the safety of various vaccines and why we need a higher standard (41:59) The suppression of effective early treatment options and the massive promotion of  vaccines (48:15) How Drs. Bowden and Lenzkes would have respectively handled the Covid situation if they had the opportunity to run the NIH in 2020-2021 (55:23) Dr. Bowden's recent interest in the carnivore diet (01:01:39) Dr. Bowden's, Dr. Tro's, and Dr. Brian's advice for medical students and the next generation of doctors (01:09:28) R.F.K. and Jay Bhattacharya (01:13:51) Outro For more information, please see the links below. Thank you for listening! Links: Please consider supporting us on Patreon: https://www.lowcarbmd.com/   Dr. Mary Bowden: BreatheMD: https://breathemd.org Americans for Health Freedom: https://www.americansforhealthfreedom.org/ Vaccine Safety Research Foundation: https://www.vacsafety.org X: https://x.com/breathemd Dr. Brian Lenzkes:  Website: https://arizonametabolichealth.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/BrianLenzkes?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author Dr. Tro Kalayjian:  Website: https://www.doctortro.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/DoctorTro Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/doctortro/ Toward Health App Join a growing community of individuals who are improving their metabolic health; together.  Get started at your own pace with a self-guided curriculum developed by Dr. Tro and his care team, community chat, weekly meetings, courses, challenges, message boards and more.  Apple: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/doctor-tro/id1588693888  Google: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=uk.co.disciplemedia.doctortro&hl=en_US&gl=US Learn more: https://doctortro.com/community/ 

In our second installment of our new “Quick Look” series, we review the Administrative Procedure Act—or APA—a vital statute that is key to navigating and influencing the regulatory world.   Show Notes: Administrative Procedure Act, Pub L. No. 79-404, 324 Stat. 237 (1946) ACUS Sourcebook Judicial Review Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by Congressional Research Service Administrative Law and Regulatory Policy: Problems, Text, and Cases by Stephen G. Breyer, et al. George B. Shepherd, The Administrative Procedure Act Emerges from New Deal Politics, 90 Nw. L. Rev. 1557 (1996). The Federal Register

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureTrump's Hud nominee lets everyone know that the government cannot fix the homelessness problem, the government is the cause. Bitcoin is going to skyrocket. Elon is showing the people the way, he is teaching people why we have inflation and what is the cause. Soon the [CB] will be restructured. The [DS] has lost the people, they have used almost all their ammunition, they are weak. They will try one more time but Trump will counter it all. Trump and Scavino send a message, its time to wake the rest of the people up, its time to unleash the lion to show the world who is really in charge, it was always the patriots.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy https://twitter.com/gatewaypundit/status/1880983137175429558 https://twitter.com/BitcoinMagazine/status/1881127168631353788   https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1880854417366491452 TAKE A LISTEN   Political/Rights https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/1880708707253936306 Fifth Circuit Rules DACA Unconstitutional Setting Up Another Supreme Court Challenge  A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, was illegal but stopped short of allowing a nationwide injunction issued by a federal judge in Texas to go into effect. The three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit ruling on the case restricted the scope of the injunction to Texas to allow further appeals. DACA is, in my opinion, the toughest part of the illegal immigration catastrophe facing the United States to solve. DACA enrollees arrived in the United States as very young children when their parents or guardians illegally immigrated. They are culturally American and frequently can't speak the language of their home country and have no family or social ties to it. There are an estimated 580,000 DACA enrollees.   DACA, as the Texas judge ruled  has no basis in law. It does not even rise to the level of a regulation. DACA started out as a 2012 memorandum signed by Obama DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano. It was never an executive order. It never went through the rule-making process required by the Administrative Procedure Act. It has never been enacted into law by Congress. Ordinarily, any memo by a cabinet secretary ceases to have validity when they leave office, not so with DACA. When President Trump's DHS secretary rescinded the DACA memo based on the advice of the Attorney General of the United States, the Supreme Court held, in a 5-4 vote (guess how the Chief Justice voted), that the Trump administration was required to follow the Administrative Procedure Act to withdraw a memo that was never subjected to that act, see The Supreme Court Rules Trump Can't End the Illegal DACA Program Because Nothing Matters Anymore. This is the second time this particular case has been heard by the Fifth Circuit and the second time the Fifth Circuit has ruled DACA unconstitutional; see Fifth Circuit Rules DACA Is Illegal but Somehow It Keeps on Moving – RedState, The case is headed back to the Supreme Court, minus the rather stupid issue of whether a single memo by a cabinet secretary can masquerade as the law of the land. Source: redstate.com Border Czar Tom Homan Says Raids on Sanctuary Cities to Deport Illegals May be Paused After Plan Was Leaked President Donald Trump's Border Czar, Tom Homan, has said the immigration raids on “Sanctuary Cities,” including Chicago and New York, may be placed on pause after details about the plan were leaked to the media. On Friday,

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does a plaintiff's claim under the Administrative Procedure Act “first accrue” under 28 U-S-C § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule, or when the rule first causes harm to the plaintiff? The case was decided on July 1, 2024. The Supreme Court held that an Administrative Procedures Act claim does not accrue for purposes of 28 U-S-C §2401(a) until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. The text of 28 U-S-C §2401(a) states that a civil action against the United States must be filed "within six years after the right of action first accrues." The Court interpreted this language according to its traditional meaning in the context of statutes of limitations, concluding that a right of action "accrues" when the plaintiff has a "complete and present cause of action"—that is, when the plaintiff has the right to file suit and obtain relief. For an Administrative Procedures Act claim, this requires both final agency action (as specified in 5 U-S-C § 704) and an injury to the plaintiff (as required by 5 U-S-C § 702). The Court rejected arguments that APA claims should be treated differently from other civil actions against the government, emphasizing that § 2401(a) uses standard accrual language that had a well-settled meaning when it was enacted in 1948. The Court also distinguished § 2401(a) from other statutes that explicitly start the clock at the time of final agency action, noting that Congress chose different language for §2401(a). By interpreting "accrues" consistently with its traditional meaning, the Court concluded that an APA claim does not accrue until the plaintiff has both experienced an injury and the agency action causing that injury has become final. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority opinion in full and wrote a separate concurrence. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe.

This week Lara and Michael cover the new lawsuit brought by Palestinian-Americans and DAWN against the U.S. State Department under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking to oblige the U.S. government to comply with the Leahy law and cease military assistance to Israel which is involved in grave violations of human rights through the conduct of its occupation forces in Gaza and the West Bank. Michael comments on Israel's occupation of hundreds of square kilometers of Syrian land in the aftermath of the vacuum created by the fall of Bashar Al-Assad and Lara characterizes this as an act of aggression under international law which has hardly been described as such by mainstream corporate media. Lara refers to the latest reports from international organizations characterizing Israel's conduct as genocide including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. Lara mentions an Israeli massacre of seven children from the same family in the Northern Part of Gaza and the frustration that accompanies the lack of policy change in the face of the most horrific admissions by Israeli soldiers of their crimes reported by the leading Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. 

This Day in Legal History: Korematsu DecisionOn December 18, 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its controversial decision in Korematsu v. United States, upholding the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The case challenged Executive Order 9066, issued by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1942, which authorized the removal of over 120,000 Japanese Americans from their homes to internment camps. Fred Korematsu, a U.S. citizen of Japanese descent, defied the order, arguing that it violated his constitutional rights.In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that the internment was a valid exercise of wartime authority, emphasizing the need to protect national security over individual rights during a period of "emergency and peril." Writing for the majority, Justice Hugo Black stated that the internment was not based on racial prejudice but on military necessity, a justification many have since criticized as a flawed rationale.The dissenting justices, including Justice Murphy, condemned the decision as a blatant violation of constitutional rights and a form of racial discrimination. Justice Murphy called the internment camps "a legalization of racism," while Justice Jackson warned of the dangerous precedent the ruling could set.Though the decision has never been explicitly overturned, Korematsu has been widely discredited. In 1983, Korematsu's conviction was vacated by a federal court, acknowledging government misconduct in the case. In 2018, the Supreme Court criticized the decision in Trump v. Hawaii, stating it "was gravely wrong the day it was decided."The legacy of Korematsu remains a stark reminder of the fragility of civil liberties during times of fear and conflict, prompting ongoing discussions about justice, prejudice, and constitutional protections. It should inspire us to question how firmly we hold our principles when we don't hold fast to them in the face of consequence but instead abandon them entirely; when we preference a temporary assuaging of fear among the skittish masses above the rights of citizens. Korematsu remains a stain on U.S. history and carries continued resonance into the modern day, as we confront the consequences of electing a president, House, and Senate largely on the strength of their promise to intern ethnic minorities. Those that would seek to distance our actions today from 1944 would suggest that interned Japanese-Americans were largely citizens, and detained immigrants today are not – but this raises the question of who controls the bestowing of citizenship, the immigrant or the state?A federal judge, Michael Ponsor, faced ethical violations after criticizing Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in a New York Times essay. Ponsor condemned Alito for displaying controversial flags outside his properties, including an upside-down American flag associated with Trump supporters during the January 6 Capitol riot. The critique spurred a judicial misconduct complaint by the conservative Article III Project, leading to an investigation.Chief U.S. Circuit Judge Albert Diaz ruled that Ponsor's essay undermined public confidence in judicial integrity and violated the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges by commenting on partisan issues. Though the essay did not reference a specific case, it coincided with debates about Alito's potential recusal from cases involving the January 6 riot and Trump's immunity bid. Ponsor apologized in a letter, acknowledging the ethical breach and committing to consulting judicial panels before future public writings.The controversy highlights tensions surrounding judicial impartiality and political commentary, particularly as it intersects with high-profile cases and public scrutiny. Just to check the box score here, that is one judicial misconduct violation for the judge that criticized the justice that flew insurrectionist flags at his home–none for the latter. Judge's criticism of US Supreme Court's Alito over flags is deemed improper | ReutersElon Musk has publicly opposed the Republican plan to temporarily fund the government, adding tension to Speaker Mike Johnson's efforts to secure a deal before Friday's shutdown deadline. The proposed legislation includes billions in disaster relief and agricultural funding, angering fiscal conservatives. Musk, tapped by President-elect Donald Trump to advise on government efficiency, criticized the bill on X, reflecting growing conservative discontent. Johnson acknowledged Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy's concerns but stressed the need for bipartisan cooperation given the narrow Republican majority.The funding dispute highlights ongoing GOP divisions that previously ousted Speaker Kevin McCarthy. Johnson faces an even slimmer majority due to recent election losses and Trump's appointment of three Republican representatives to his administration. This leaves the party with a precarious one-vote margin until special elections in April. Conservatives like Marjorie Taylor Greene have criticized the bill's added spending as unnecessary, predicting it will gain more Democratic than Republican support, risking further internal conflict.Johnson remains confident about retaining his position as Speaker despite challenges, emphasizing his focus on immediate legislative priorities, including the budget blueprint and border security measures.Trump Key Adviser Musk Comes Out Against Year-End Funding BillA special master has ordered TikTok Inc. to provide source code, financial data, and usage data for its apps, including CapCut and BytePlus Video Editor, in a trade secrets and copyright infringement case filed by Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co. The Chinese tech company alleges that TikTok misappropriated its video and audio editing source code, accusing a former Meishe engineer of trade theft before joining TikTok.The case, originally filed in Texas in 2021, was transferred to California in 2023. TikTok argued that discovery about its apps, including Faceu and Lemon8, was irrelevant because U.S. laws do not typically apply to conduct outside the country. However, the special master, Hon. Kendall J. Newman (Ret.), ruled that discovery was necessary since Meishe may recover damages for foreign infringement if it can show TikTok copied its code in the U.S. and used it abroad.TikTok has 30 days to comply with the order, which allows Meishe to pursue claims involving extraterritorial damages. Meanwhile, TikTok also faces a potential U.S. government ban unless its parent company, ByteDance Ltd., divests the app by January 19. On the same day, Newman partially granted TikTok's request to compel Meishe to disclose documents about its affiliate XAT, which allegedly developed the disputed source code.TikTok Must Turn Over Code, Financial Data in Trade Secrets SuitDemocratic state attorneys general (AGs) are preparing to defend environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives against expected challenges from the incoming Trump administration and Republican-controlled Congress. They plan to leverage the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which limits agency regulatory authority, to counter potential anti-ESG actions that lack explicit congressional approval. Minnesota AG Keith Ellison and Nevada AG Aaron Ford emphasized their readiness to use legal frameworks like the Administrative Procedure Act and Loper Bright to protect ESG-related policies.Concerns include possible rollbacks of Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules facilitating ESG proposals, restrictions on corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and curtailment of climate-related disclosures. The GOP's Project 2025 agenda calls for sweeping changes, including a task force to challenge ESG/DEI practices and reclassification of DEI as discriminatory. Ellison and Ford argue such measures risk undermining civil rights and shareholder freedoms.Democratic AGs have pledged to challenge these policies in court and defend existing ESG regulations, such as the SEC's climate disclosure rules. Meanwhile, Republican AGs are aligning with Trump's deregulatory agenda, with Tennessee AG Jonathan Skrmetti noting their support through briefs and interventions. Both sides are preparing for extensive legal battles over the regulatory future of ESG and DEI initiatives.Blue State AGs Prepare to Use Loper Bright Ruling to Defend ESG This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

If you work for a bank or other consumer financial services provider, you will want to listen closely to how consumer advocates are reacting to Trump's election insofar as the CFPB and FTC are concerned. In today's podcast episode, we're joined by Erin Witte and Adam Rust (the “CFA Reps”) from CFA. We focus first on CFPB and FTC regulations that might be finalized during the lame duck session of Congress. The CFA Reps express hope that the FTC would finalize its so-called “junk fee reg” which, as proposed, called for “all-in” pricing (I.e., disclosure of a dollar amount for goods and services that includes all fees that will be charged in connection with the transaction.) They also express hope that the CFPB will finalize its checking account overdraft fees reg, the larger participant rule pertaining to non-bank payment providers and the medical debt rule which, if finalized, would result in unpaid medical debt no longer appearing on credit bureau reports. Of course, there is a risk, with respect to each of these rules as well as any other CFPB and FTC rules finalized roughly after August 1 of this year, which they may be overruled by Congress under the Congressional Review Act. We then discuss final regs promulgated by the FTC and CFPB which have been challenged in the Circuit Courts of Appeal. For the FTC, this includes the so-called CARS Rule (which imposes restrictions on car dealers' sales and financing of motor vehicles) and the recent “Click-to-Cancel” Rule which, among other things, requires sellers of goods and services on a subscription basis to be able to cancel subscriptions as easily as signing up for subscriptions. The latter rule has been challenged in four circuit courts of appeal.  We also discuss the status of many CFPB final regs and what a new CFPB's strategy may be with respect to them. They include: the $8 credit card late fee rule which is currently enjoined by a Federal District Court in Texas; the data collection reg pertaining to small business loans promulgated under Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank, which is currently on appeal before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after a Federal District Court denied a motion by the bank trade associations to grant a preliminary injunction pertaining to the reg; the open-banking reg under Section 1033 of Dodd-Frank (which pertains to consumers having the ability to share information in certain bank accounts with third parties which has been challenged in court; the Buy-Now, Pay-Later interpretive rule which has been challenged in court; and the Earned Wage Access interpretive rule. There is great uncertainty as to whether the new CFPB's Director will seek to repeal or amend any of these regs or whether he or she will elect to change the CFPB's position in the litigation to side with the plaintiffs. In order to repeal or change any of the regs (other than the two interpretive rules), the CFPB will need to jump through all the hoops required by the Administrative Procedure Act before effecting a repeal or change and the repeal or change might be challenged in court as being arbitrary or capricious. It would seem that it might be much easier to repeal or change the interpretive rules which would not require publishing them in the Federal Register for notice and comment. The CFS Reps also express hope that the CFPB issues its final report with respect to the voluminous information it received from auto finance companies in response to market monitoring orders it issued to them. An initial report recently issued by the CFPB and dealt with the incidence of financing negative equity in cars being traded in. While the final report is unlikely to result in new proposed CFPB regulations during the next four years, the report might instigate enforcement actions by state AGs. As was the case during the first Trump presidency, the CFA Reps believe that whatever consumer protection void is created at the CFPB will largely be filled by state AGs, state departments of banking and consumer protection agencies. They also expect there to be an increase in private civil litigation, including class actions. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts the discussion.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Food and Drug Administration's orders denying respondents' applications for authorization to market new e-cigarette products was arbitrary and capricious, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Today's podcast episode is a re-purposing of a webinar we recorded on November 12, 2024. Our special guests for that webinar were Colin Carr, Vice-President of Congressional affairs at the Consumer Bankers Association and Ian Katz, Managing Director at Capital Alpha Partners. John Culhane, a partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group at our firm. The webinar begins with Colin giving us an overview of President-Elect Trump's victory and the Senate and House elections which resulted in the Republicans achieving close majorities in both chambers. As a result, the Republicans may not have too much difficulty in confirming Trump nominees for various positions and may also be able to override final rules published in the Federal Register by the CFPB and other agencies after August 1 of this year under the Congressional Review Act. (This includes the so-called “open banking” rule pertaining to consumer control of their records at banks under Section 133 of Dodd-Frank. Ian then addresses certain leadership changes at the CFPB, FDIC, OCC, FRB and FTC and the possibility of Trump using recess appointments to nominate the leaders of those agencies. John Culhane then takes a deep dive into the current status and expected outcome of agency regulations (both legislative and interpretive), proposed regulations and other written but less formal guidance and circulars. This includes the CFPB's $8. credit card late fee rule, the small business data collection rule under Section 1071 of Dodd-Frank, the Buy-Now, Pay-Later interpretive rule, “open banking “ rule, and the changes to the UDAAP Exam Manual which described any form of discrimination as being an unfair trade practice, all of which are the subject of pending litigation. We also discuss the FTC's “CARS” rule and the “Click to Cancel” rule, which are also subject to pending litigation. Finally, we discussed the FDIC's “brokered deposits” rule. We explain how final legislative rules can only be overturned or modified through Congressional Review Act override (if they were adopted after August 1, 2024) or by proposing a repeal or modification under the Administrative Procedure Act (which is the same lengthy procedure utilized to promulgate the regulation) or by a final judgment of a court invalidating the rule. We also discuss whether the new CFPB Director may concede that the CFPB has been unlawfully funded under Dodd-Frank since the FRB may only fund the CFPB out of “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” and because there have been no such combined earnings since September, 2022. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group at Ballard Spahr hosts the episode.  

This year, in a pair of decisions known as Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine. As courts begin to apply the principles announced in Loper Bright, important changes are expected to occur within the federal government and its relationship to the states. For example, Congress may begin to write federal statutes with increasing specificity, courts may begin to apply their own reasoned judgment instead of deferring to agency experts in litigation involving the Administrative Procedure Act, and the states may have greater success in asserting their authority over important legal matters within their domain.These developments in administrative law will likely have a large effect on the realm of environmental and energy regulation. If courts can no longer presume that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations by Congress to the Executive Branch, how ought Congress, federal agencies, and the states respond to a post-Chevron world?Featuring:Prof. Todd Aagaard, Professor of Law, Charles Widger School Of Law, Villanova UniversityHon. Lindsay See, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionHon. Andrew Wheeler, Partner and Head of Federal Affairs, Holland & Hart; Former EPA AdministratorModerator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Today's podcast, which repurposes a recent webinar, is the conclusion of a two-part examination of the CFPB's use of a proposed interpretive rule, rather than a legislative rule, to expand regulatory requirements for earned wage access (EWA) products. Part One, which was released last week, focused on the CFPB's use of an interpretive rule to expand regulatory requirements for buy-now, pay-later (BNPL) products. We open with a discussion of EWA products, briefly describing and distinguishing direct-to-consumer EWAs and employer-based EWAS. We review some of the consumer-friendly features that are common to EWAs, including that there is no interest charged and they are typically non-recourse, and discuss expedited funding fees and tips, neither of which is required to access EWAs. We also provide an overview of how some states have attempted to regulate (or specifically not regulate) EWAs. We then transition into a discussion of the CFPB's history with EWA products, including the Bureau's advisory opinion in 2020 that took a markedly different approach to EWAs, essentially taking the position that a certain subset of EWAs fell outside of the definition of “credit” under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and Regulation Z. The CFPB's proposed interpretive rule, on the other hand, states that EWAs are “credit” and that expedited funding fees and optional tips, in most circumstances, are part of the finance charge that must be disclosed under TILA and Regulation Z. We explore the Bureau's reasoning in support of these conclusions and some of the compliance difficulties that the proposed interpretive rule would create were it to go into effect as written. Since this recording took place, the CFPB has posted over 148,000 comment letters that it has received on the proposed interpretive rule, many of which are from consumers who use EWAs to access a portion of their earned wages prior to their scheduled payday and are concerned that the proposed interpretive rule could limit or jeopardize their access to EWAs. The high number of responses demonstrates the level of interest that the CFPB's proposed interpretive rule has generated. We conclude with thoughts about vulnerabilities with both the proposed interpretive rule for EWAs and the interpretive rule for BNPLs that we described in Part One of this podcast, as well as how these rules could potentially be challenged. One notable development that has occurred since our recording is that the Financial Technology Association has filed a complaint asking a D.C. federal court to strike down the interpretive rule for BNPLs because of the alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act that we discuss in this episode. Alan Kaplinsky, former Practice Leader and Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, moderates today's episode, and is joined by John Culhane and Michael Guerrero, Partners in the Group, and John Kimble, Of Counsel in the Group.

Tuesday, April 16th, 2024Today, jury selection is underway in the first criminal trial of a former president and current candidate in history; expelled Congressman George Santos talks about his fundraising efforts for his bid to run again; Justice Clarence Thomas is absent from the bench for arguments this week; Trump Media shares plunge again on the announcement to file additional shares; transgender veterans are suing the Department of Veterans Affairs; Trump files his response to Jack Smith with the Supreme Court in the immunity case; plus Allison and Dana deliver your good news. Our Guest:US House Rep. Dan Goldmanhttps://twitter.com/danielsgoldmanJustice Clarence Thomas misses Supreme Court arguments (NBC News)Trump stock tanks after announcing massive share sale (CNN)George Santos Explains Why He's Raised $0 for Return Congressional Bid (Daily Beast)Transgender veterans file 2nd lawsuit against VA for gender-affirming surgery coverage (NBC NEWS)Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsBlue Wave Postcard Movementhttps://shop.bluewavepostcards.orgUtah State Board of Educationhttps://www.schools.utah.govUpcoming Live Show Dateshttps://allisongill.com (for tickets and show dates)Sunday, June 2nd – Chicago IL – Schubas TavernFriday June 14th – Philadelphia PA – City WinerySaturday June 15th – New York NY – City WinerySunday June 16th – Boston MA – City WineryWednesday July 10th – Portland OR – Polaris Hall(with Dana!)Thursday July 11th – Seattle WA – The Triple Door(with Dana!)6/17/2024 Boston, MA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-Bos27/25/2024 Milwaukee, WI https://tinyurl.com/Beans-MKE7/28/2024 Nashville, TN - with Phil Williams https://tinyurl.com/Beans-Tenn7/31/2024 St. Louis, MO https://tinyurl.com/Beans-STL8/16/2024 Washington, DC - with Andy McCabe, Pete Strzok, Glenn Kirschner https://tinyurl.com/Beans-in-DC8/24/2024 San Francisco, CA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-SF Live Show Ticket Links:Chicago, IL https://tinyurl.com/Beans-ChiPhiladelphia, PA https://tinyurl.com/Beans-PhillyNew York, NY https://tinyurl.com/Beans-NYCBoston, MAhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-Bos2Portland, ORhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-PDXSeattle, WAhttps://tinyurl.com/Beans-SEA Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts