Podcasts about Administrative Procedure Act

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

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. 

In this case, the court considered these issues: 1. Does the Magnuson-Stevens Act authorize the National Marine Fisheries Service to promulgate a rule that would require industry to pay for at-sea monitoring programs? 2. Should the Court overrule Chevron v Natural Resources Defense Council or at least clarify whether statutory silence on controversial powers creates an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency? The case was decided on June 28, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the Administrative Procedure Act requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous. Chevron U-S-A Inc. v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. is overruled. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court (which also decided the consolidated case, Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce). The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) of 1946 requires courts to "decide all relevant questions of law" when reviewing agency actions. This means courts should use their own judgment to interpret laws, not defer to agencies' interpretations. The Chevron doctrine, established in the 1984 case Chevron U-S-A v Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., contradicts this principle. Chevron required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes if those interpretations were reasonable. Chevron was based on a flawed assumption that Congress intends to delegate interpretive authority to agencies whenever a law is ambiguous. This assumption doesn't reflect reality and goes against the traditional role of courts. Chevron has been difficult to apply consistently and has led to confusion in lower courts. It has also been gradually limited by subsequent Supreme Court decisions. Thus, Chevron should be overruled because it contradicts the APA, is based on faulty reasoning, has proven unworkable in practice, and hasn't created the kind of settled expectations that would justify keeping it in place. However, this decision does not necessarily overturn the specific outcomes of past cases that used Chevron. Those outcomes would need to be challenged separately. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions. Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson joined as to No. 22-1219. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of No. 22-451. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

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.

This Day in Legal History: John Brown HangedOn December 2, 1859, John Brown, a fervent abolitionist, was executed by hanging after being convicted of treason, murder, and inciting an insurrection. Brown's actions culminated in the October 1859 raid on the federal armory at Harper's Ferry, Virginia (now West Virginia), where he and his small band of followers aimed to spark a widespread slave uprising. The raid ultimately failed, with local militia and federal troops, led by then-Colonel Robert E. Lee, quelling the assault. Brown and several of his men were captured, while others were killed in the attack or shortly thereafter.  At his trial, Brown delivered a defiant and eloquent speech, asserting his moral righteousness and condemning the institution of slavery. He proclaimed that he acted on divine principles to aid the oppressed, famously stating, “If it is deemed necessary that I should forfeit my life for the furtherance of the ends of justice... I submit; so let it be done.” These words cemented Brown's place as a martyr in the eyes of abolitionists and a villain to many in the pro-slavery South.  Brown's execution deepened the sectional divide in the United States. His death was celebrated in much of the South as justice served but mourned in the North as the loss of a man willing to sacrifice everything for the cause of ending slavery. The incident inflamed tensions, contributing to the accelerating march toward the Civil War. To many, John Brown remains a complex figure—part radical, part visionary, whose unwavering commitment to justice continues to spark debate about the means and ends of social change.President Joe Biden issued a full pardon for his son Hunter Biden, reversing his previous stance against using executive power in the case. The pardon covers all offenses committed by Hunter between 2014 and 2024, including gun and tax charges for which he was recently convicted. Biden justified the decision, calling the charges politically motivated attacks by his opponents aimed at undermining him and his family. Hunter, in his statement, expressed gratitude and vowed to use his second chance to help others struggling with addiction.  The timing of the pardon, just weeks before Biden's departure from office, drew sharp criticism from Republicans, who have long accused Hunter Biden of unethical business practices and leveraging his father's influence. GOP lawmakers, including Representative James Comer, denounced the move as an attempt to shield the Biden family from accountability, despite a lack of evidence connecting President Biden to any misconduct.  Former President Donald Trump criticized the pardon on social media, framing it as part of a broader misuse of the justice system, a claim his team frequently makes about their own legal battles. Hunter Biden's legal team confirmed they have filed to dismiss pending cases in multiple courts based on the pardon. The decision reignited debate over executive clemency and its role in politically charged cases, highlighting the partisan tensions surrounding both Hunter and President Biden.Biden Pardons Son Hunter in Reversal With Weeks Left in Term (2)The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the FDA's denial of flavored e-cigarette products, focusing on whether the agency followed proper legal procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. The FDA rejected applications from Triton Distribution and Vapetasia, among others, citing health risks to youth, as flavors like “pink lemonade” and “Suicide Bunny Mother's Milk and Cookies” were seen as appealing to minors. The FDA's review process requires e-cigarette makers to demonstrate that their products benefit public health more than they pose risks, a standard critics argue is stringent.  The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled earlier this year that the FDA's decision was "arbitrary and capricious," as it failed to consider measures proposed by the companies to restrict underage use. This ruling conflicts with decisions from seven other federal appellate courts that upheld the FDA's actions, prompting the agency's Supreme Court appeal.  The FDA has authorized only 34 flavored e-cigarette products, all tobacco or menthol flavored, while rejecting over a million others due to concerns about youth usage. The agency found that flavored e-cigarettes are the most popular tobacco product among teens, with flavor cited as a key motivator. The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, has increasingly limited federal regulatory authority, making this case a critical test of the FDA's powers under the Tobacco Control Act.US Supreme Court to scrutinize FDA denial of flavored vape products | ReutersJPMorgan Chase and Tesla have agreed to settle their long-running legal dispute over stock warrants, dropping their claims against each other. The lawsuit, filed by JPMorgan in 2021, sought $162.2 million, alleging that Tesla breached a 2014 agreement related to the warrants. These financial instruments allowed JPMorgan to buy Tesla shares at a set price and date, but the bank argued that Elon Musk's 2018 tweet about potentially taking Tesla private at $420 per share significantly affected the stock's value and required repricing of the warrants.  Tesla countersued in 2023, accusing JPMorgan of exploiting the repricing to seek an undue financial advantage. Despite the acrimony, the companies resolved their differences in a Manhattan court filing, and settlement terms were not disclosed. JPMorgan described the outcome as a positive resolution and indicated plans to develop a new commercial relationship with Tesla.  Musk's controversial 2018 tweet, which led to market volatility, also prompted regulatory scrutiny, including a deal with the SEC requiring pre-approval for certain of his tweets. The settlement ends years of legal battles and clears the way for the two firms to move forward collaboratively.JPMorgan agrees to drop lawsuit against Tesla over stock warrants | ReutersDonald Trump's decision to nominate Kash Patel as FBI director has sparked bipartisan criticism and raised concerns over Patel's qualifications and polarizing rhetoric. A staunch Trump loyalist, Patel has frequently attacked the FBI, labeling it a core part of the so-called “deep state,” and has vowed to shut down its Washington, D.C., headquarters, calling for it to be repurposed as a “museum of the deep state.” His nomination, dependent on the removal of current FBI director Christopher Wray, faces strong opposition in the Senate, even among some Republicans.  Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD) praised Wray's leadership and hinted at resistance to Patel's confirmation, emphasizing the Senate's constitutional role in vetting nominees. Other Republicans, like Senators Ted Cruz and Bill Hagerty, support Patel, citing his commitment to dismantling perceived FBI corruption. However, Democrats and some moderates view Patel's nomination as a politicized attack on the agency. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD) challenged claims of FBI partisanship under President Biden, pointing to high-profile prosecutions of Democratic politicians as evidence of impartiality.  Critics are alarmed by Patel's inflammatory statements, including threats to use federal power against perceived political enemies and his accusations against individuals like Biden's national security adviser, Jake Sullivan. Patel's loyalty to Trump, coupled with his lack of traditional law enforcement experience, has further fueled concerns about his fitness to lead the nation's premier investigative agency.  Patel's nomination is part of a series of controversial picks by Trump for his potential administration, including appointing convicted felon Charles Kushner as ambassador to France and other contentious figures to key roles. These decisions highlight Trump's intent to reshape federal agencies according to his political vision, drawing sharp criticism from opponents and skepticism even from within his party.Conspiracy theorist Kash Patel, Trump's pick to lead FBI, faces Senate blowback | FBI | The Guardian 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

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

This Day in Legal History: Max Headroom IncidentOn November 22, 1987, a bizarre and illegal hijacking of television signals in Chicago made history as the "Max Headroom incident." During an evening broadcast of the news on WGN-TV, the signal was interrupted by a person wearing a rubber Max Headroom mask—a character from a popular British-American sci-fi show. The intruder, who spoke in distorted audio while a buzzing background noise played, reappeared later during a broadcast of "Doctor Who" on PBS affiliate WTTW. In the second interruption, the masked figure performed erratic gestures, spouted nonsensical phrases, and referenced TV culture, all culminating in a crude act involving a flyswatter and exposed buttocks. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC), tasked with regulating airwaves, launched an immediate investigation, as signal hijacking violates federal laws prohibiting unauthorized use of broadcast frequencies. Despite efforts by the FCC and law enforcement, the perpetrators were never identified, adding an air of mystery to the event. The technical feat required to override broadcast signals in 1987 suggested that the culprits had considerable expertise and access to specialized equipment.This incident was one of the most notorious cases of broadcast signal intrusion, highlighting vulnerabilities in television networks at the time. It also sparked debates about cybersecurity, freedom of expression, and the emerging role of "hacktivism" in digital media. No further incidents of this type occurred on such a scale in the United States, likely due to improvements in broadcast security and stricter regulatory oversight. President-elect Donald Trump announced his nomination of former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as Attorney General following Matt Gaetz's withdrawal. Bondi, a longstanding Trump ally, has been a vocal supporter of his claims that the Justice Department's investigations into him were politically biased. If confirmed, Bondi would oversee major aspects of the DOJ, including defending controversial policies and managing federal grants.Trump praised Bondi for her toughness and alignment with his "America First" agenda. Bondi previously served on Trump's legal defense team during his first impeachment trial and has taken high-profile legal stances, including challenging the Affordable Care Act as Florida's Attorney General. However, her tenure has also been marked by controversies, such as accepting a Trump Foundation donation while considering action against Trump University, though no wrongdoing was found.Bondi's nomination comes as Trump plans significant changes to the Justice Department, including possible leadership shifts, and amid ongoing federal indictments against him. Bondi has publicly supported Trump's claims of voter fraud and pledged to investigate alleged “deep state” actors. Her background includes working on drug policy and opioid abuse commissions during Trump's first term and involvement with the Trump-aligned America First Policy Institute.Matt Gaetz, initially chosen for the role, stepped down citing the distraction caused by controversies, including a closed sex trafficking investigation and a House Ethics probe. Trump's choice of Bondi highlights his intent to reshape the DOJ's focus while surrounding himself with trusted allies.Trump Picks Pam Bondi for Attorney General After Gaetz Exit (1)Trump picks Pam Bondi for US Attorney General after Gaetz withdraws | ReutersPresident-elect Donald Trump has appointed Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), tasked with identifying and repealing federal regulations they consider overly burdensome or invalid. The panel plans to focus on rules that they argue were enacted by unaccountable bureaucracies, guided by recent Supreme Court decisions that curtail agency rulemaking powers. DOGE also aims to propose mass layoffs and identify unauthorized federal spending, with a goal of completing its work by July 4, 2026.Repealing federal rules, however, is a complex and lengthy process governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires detailed justifications, public comment periods, and compliance with legal standards. While Trump could issue executive orders halting enforcement of certain rules, agencies must still follow formal procedures for repealing them. Lawsuits are likely to challenge attempts to eliminate regulations, especially by opponents who claim improper justification or procedural violations.Musk and Ramaswamy's efforts will leverage recent Supreme Court rulings limiting agencies' ability to address major economic or societal issues without explicit Congressional authorization. Despite this, many regulations have firm legal backing, making their repeal difficult. Legal experts predict a wave of lawsuits and mixed outcomes, given the partisan makeup of federal courts. DOGE's recommendations signal Trump's broader agenda to significantly curtail the administrative powers of federal agencies.How Trump's Musk-led efficiency panel could slash federal agency rules | ReutersThe European Commission has closed its four-year antitrust investigation into Apple's rules for e-book and audiobook app developers following the withdrawal of the original complaint. The complainant, who remains unnamed, opted to drop the case, prompting regulators to end the probe. The closure does not indicate that Apple's conduct was found to comply with EU competition laws. EU regulators emphasized their ongoing commitment to monitoring tech industry practices, including Apple's, under the Digital Markets Act and broader competition regulations. The case's conclusion reflects the challenges in sustaining antitrust investigations without active complainants, though scrutiny of Apple's business practices in Europe is expected to persist.EU regulators scrap probe into Apple's e-book rules after complaint was withdrawn | ReutersSenate Democrats have agreed to a deal with Republicans to advance votes on President Joe Biden's district court nominees while abandoning four appellate court picks. The agreement allows the Senate to confirm several district court judges quickly, despite GOP stalling tactics aimed at delaying Biden's judicial appointments before Republicans assume control of the White House and Senate in January. Majority Leader Chuck Schumer's spokesperson highlighted that the trade-off prioritized advancing more district court nominees over the blocked circuit picks.The deal derails the nominations of Adeel Mangi, Ryan Park, Karla Campbell, and Julia Lipez for appellate court seats. Mangi, who would have been the first Muslim federal appellate judge, faced opposition from some Democrats over allegations linking him to antisemitic and anti-police groups. Park's nomination was also at risk due to lack of Republican support. Meanwhile, the Senate pushed forward on cloture votes for several district court nominees, including Spark Sooknanan, Brian Murphy, Anne Hwang, Cynthia Valenzuela Dixon, and Catherine Henry. Votes on their confirmations will occur after Thanksgiving. Other nominees, such as Sharad Desai for Arizona and several others approved by the Judiciary Committee, also advanced. The agreement leaves critical appellate seats open, including those on the Third and First Circuits, aiding President-elect Donald Trump's agenda to influence the federal judiciary. Some judges considering semi-retirement may now delay their decisions, further impacting the judicial landscape.Biden Circuit Picks Derailed by Senate Deal on Trial Judges (2)This week's closing theme is by Johann Sebastian Bach.Johann Sebastian Bach (1685–1750) was a German composer and musician of the Baroque period, widely regarded as one of the greatest composers in Western music history. Born into a family of musicians in Eisenach, he displayed prodigious talent from a young age, mastering the organ, harpsichord, and violin. Throughout his career, Bach held prestigious positions as a court musician, music director, and cantor, most notably serving as the Thomaskantor in Leipzig, where he composed many of his most enduring works. His output includes cantatas, concertos, masses, and instrumental pieces, showcasing an unparalleled command of counterpoint, harmony, and structure. Despite limited recognition during his lifetime, Bach's music profoundly influenced later composers, earning him the title "Father of Music."This week's closing music is Bach's Prelude and Fugue in G minor, BWV 861, from The Well-Tempered Clavier, Book I. This collection of preludes and fugues in all 24 major and minor keys was revolutionary, both as a demonstration of the possibilities of the then-novel well-tempered tuning system and as a masterclass in compositional technique. The G minor prelude opens with a flowing, somber melody that builds in complexity, evoking introspection and elegance. The fugue that follows is a testament to Bach's genius for counterpoint, weaving together a single thematic idea into an intricate tapestry of musical voices.The Prelude and Fugue in G minor exemplifies Bach's ability to transform simple ideas into profound statements, inviting listeners into a world of meticulous craftsmanship and emotional depth. It's a fitting choice to close the week, blending timeless artistry with intellectual rigor.Without further ado, Johann Sebastian Bach's Prelude and Fugue in G minor, enjoy. 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

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.

On June 28, in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, et al., the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron deference doctrine, a long-standing tenet of administrative law established in 1984 in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. This doctrine directed courts to defer to a government agency's interpretation of a statute if the statute was ambiguous regarding, or simply did not address, the issue before the court, as long as the interpretation was reasonable. However, legal scholars now express widely divergent views as to the scope and likely effects of Loper Bright's overruling of the Chevron doctrine on the future course of regulatory agency interpretive and enforcement authority. In this two-part episode, which repurposes a recent webinar, a panel of experts delves into the Loper Bright decision, and its underpinnings, rationale, and likely fallout. Our podcast features moderator Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former practice leader of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group; Ballard Spahr Partners Richard Andreano, Jr. and John Culhane, Jr.; and special guests Craig Green, Charles Klein Professor of Law and Government at Temple University Beasley School of Law, and Kent Barnett, recently appointed Dean of the Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University. In Part I, we first review the history of judicial deference to agency interpretations in American courts throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, culminating in the advent of Chevron deference.  We then discuss post-Chevron developments, including shifts in judicial and political views of the role courts should play in interpretation of agency action. Then, we turn to an in-depth discussion of the majority opinion in Loper Bright, authored by Chief Justice Roberts, including its reliance on the Administrative Procedure Act to invalidate Chevron deference and the opinion's numerous ambiguities that result in a “very, very fuzzy” outcome, leaving regulated industries facing uncertainty as to whether or not courts will uphold agency rules. We then explore other topics including the majority opinion's endorsement of an approach courts should take to review agency actions as described in a 1940's case, Skidmore v. Swift & Co.; what deference may or may not be given to agency policy-making and fact-finding in light of Loper Bright; and the divergent views of some legal scholars who suggest that many courts will continue to give broad deference to agency views notwithstanding Loper Bright.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Biden v Nebraska. In this case, the court considered these issues: 1. Do Nebraska and other states have judicial standing to challenge the student-debt relief program? 2. Does the student-debt relief program exceed the statutory authority of the U.S. Secretary of Education, or does it violate the Administrative Procedure Act? The case was decided on June 30, 2023. The Supreme Court held that the Secretary of Education does not have authority under the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003 (HEROES Act) to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in debt principal and affect nearly all borrowers. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion of the Court. First, the Court concluded that Missouri has standing to challenge the student-debt relief program. Article III requires a plaintiff to have suffered an injury in fact—a concrete and imminent harm to a legally protected interest, like property or money—that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct and likely to be redressed by the lawsuit. Here, the Secretary's plan would cost MOHELA, a nonprofit government corporation created by Missouri to participate in the student loan market, an estimated $44 million a year in fees, and the harm to MOHELA in the performance of its public function is an injury to Missouri itself. Second, the Court determined that the HEROES Act's authorization of the Secretary to “waive or modify” existing statutory or regulatory provisions applicable to financial assistance programs under the Education Act does not extend to canceling $430 billion of student loan principal. The Act permits the Secretary to “modify” statutory provisions but only “moderately or in minor fashion” as the term is ordinarily used. The “modifications” challenged here create a novel and fundamentally different loan forgiveness program that Congress could not have intended to permit. And the power to “waive” does not remotely resemble how such power has been used on prior occasions, where it was simply used to nullify particular legal requirements. Third, the Court rejected the Secretary's argument that the unprecedented nature of the COVID-19 pandemic justified the unprecedented nature of the the debt cancellation plan. Citing its recent decision in West Virginia v EPA, the Court expressed hesitance that Congress could have intended to confer such authority on the Secretary and not retain it for itself. Justice Amy Coney Barrett authored a concurring opinion. Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

This Day in Legal History: Kellogg-Briand PactOn August 27, 1928, thirty-two nations signed the Kellogg-Briand Pact in Paris, a treaty aimed at renouncing war as a means of resolving disputes. Initiated by U.S. Secretary of State Frank B. Kellogg and French Foreign Minister Aristide Briand, the pact reflected the widespread desire for peace following the devastation of World War I. The signatories pledged to settle conflicts through diplomatic means rather than military force, marking an ambitious step towards global peace. Kellogg's role in the treaty earned him the Nobel Peace Prize in 1929.However, the pact's impact was limited by significant flaws. It contained no mechanisms for enforcement, leaving it powerless to prevent future conflicts. Additionally, the treaty allowed for "self-defense" and other exceptions, which nations exploited to justify subsequent wars. Despite its noble intentions, the Kellogg-Briand Pact failed to prevent the outbreak of World War II just over a decade later. Nonetheless, it remains a symbolic milestone in the international effort to promote peace and reduce reliance on warfare in global relations.A federal district court has temporarily halted a Biden administration program that allows immigrant spouses and stepchildren of U.S. citizens to seek removal protections and work permits without leaving the country. Republican-led states challenged the "parole in place" program on August 23, claiming it violated the Administrative Procedure Act and overstepped the Department of Homeland Security's authority. The program was expected to benefit around 550,000 people. Judge J. Campbell Barker, who granted a 14-day administrative stay, clarified that this pause doesn't block DHS from accepting applications. Barker emphasized that the stay is a preliminary measure, without indicating the potential outcome of the case.A quick bit of editorializing here: The Loper Bright decision's overturning of Chevron deference, coupled with the reimagining of the Administrative Procedure Act, suggests we are on the cusp of significant legal shifts. Without the Chevron framework guiding agency interpretations, courts will likely see a surge in litigation as regulated entities and interest groups challenge agency actions like these here more frequently. This could lead to increased judicial scrutiny of administrative decisions and a more fragmented regulatory landscape, where the consistency of agency enforcement may be replaced by a patchwork of court rulings that vary by jurisdiction.Judge Freezes ‘Parole in Place' Program for Immigrant SpousesUpcoming tax regulations could clarify whether agricultural land contaminated by PFAS qualifies for a 10% federal tax credit under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which incentivizes renewable energy projects on brownfields. While the current definition of brownfields doesn't explicitly include unfarmable agricultural land, expected updates from the Treasury Department may offer clearer guidance. This could benefit states like Maine, where policies already prioritize using PFAS-contaminated farmland for renewable energy projects, although they don't offer direct financial incentives. Developers like Walden Renewables and Dirigo Solar LLC are exploring solar projects on such contaminated sites, seeing it as a way to utilize damaged land without further spreading pollutants. However, not all contaminated farms are suitable due to factors like the cost of connecting to the energy grid. Maine's laws provide additional protections for landowners, including requirements for restoring the property and covering decommissioning costs, making these projects potentially beneficial for both developers and farmers.Energy Tax Credit Rules for Polluted Sites Could Help FarmersIn the closing arguments of Thomas Girardi's criminal fraud trial, prosecutors painted him as the mastermind behind the theft of millions in client settlement funds, labeling him the "thief-in-chief." Assistant U.S. Attorney Ali Moghaddas described Girardi's law firm, Girardi Keese, as a Ponzi scheme, arguing that Girardi's cognitive decline did not absolve him of responsibility. The prosecution countered claims that former CFO Christopher Kamon was solely to blame, noting that $14 million was stolen before Kamon even joined the firm.Moghaddas emphasized Girardi's active role in the fraud, highlighting his refusal to share bank records and his deceptive dealings with clients like the Ruigomez family. He dismissed the defense's argument that Girardi was mentally unfit, instead portraying him as fully aware of his actions until the end.In contrast, Girardi's defense argued that he was more a victim of Kamon's “generational” fraud and was unaware of the crimes due to his deteriorating mental state. They likened the situation to “Weekend at Bernie's,” claiming that others propped Girardi up to keep the firm running.Girardi, who pleaded not guilty to four counts of wire fraud for allegedly stealing $15 million between 2010 and 2020, faces additional charges and civil lawsuits.Girardi Was ‘Thief-in-Chief' Prosecutors Say as Trial ClosesU.S. Special Counsel Jack Smith has asked the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to reinstate the criminal case against Donald Trump for allegedly retaining classified documents. This appeal follows a July ruling by Judge Aileen Cannon that dismissed the indictment, arguing that Smith was unlawfully appointed. Smith's team countered, stating that the Attorney General has the authority to appoint special counsels and that Cannon's decision contradicts established legal precedents, including Supreme Court rulings. They also requested oral arguments to be scheduled. Trump's legal team has called for the case to remain dismissed, claiming it is part of politically motivated attacks against him. Cannon's ruling has been widely criticized for ignoring long-standing legal practices concerning special counsel appointments.Special counsel asks court to revive charges against Trump in documents case | ReutersIn my column this week I discuss how a wealth tax could address inequality in the US, I explore Spain's wealth tax model as a potential solution. Spain's wealth tax targets the top 0.5% of its wealthiest citizens, proving to be a significant revenue generator. This raises the question of whether a similar approach could work in the US, where economic disparity is a persistent issue. Spain's tax model, with rates based on net wealth and specific exemptions, provides a tangible example that the US could adapt. Even applying the lowest Spanish tax rate to the top 0.1% of US wealth holders—those worth over $50 million—could generate approximately $340 billion annually. This would represent a 7% increase in federal tax revenue, potentially boosting welfare funding by 25% or slightly reducing national debt. Notwithstanding the promise, implementing such a tax in the US would face serious legal challenges and political resistance. The key to gaining public support will lie in clearly connecting the wealth tax revenue to tangible benefits for the average citizen. Spain's Wealth Tax Model Could Address Inequality in US Policy 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

Comment on the Show by Sending Mark a Text Message.Are non-compete agreements holding back American workers? Join me, Mark, for a deep dive into the FTC's groundbreaking rule banning these contentious clauses and the fierce legal battles ignited by it. We'll dissect the pivotal Texas court decision that seeks to block the rule and its far-reaching implications for millions of employees. Understand how the Administrative Procedure Act and conflicting judicial opinions from Texas and Pennsylvania are shaping this debate, and what it all means for the upcoming presidential election. We'll also explore the economic consequences for employers and why the rule's enforcement date of September 4th, 2024, is crucial, pending appellate and Supreme Court reviews.But that's not all. We also tackle the issue of default management agreements that unduly control employees' financial and income affairs. Discover why these agreements are so problematic and how the FTC's new rule aims to protect worker rights. Take a look at Silicon Valley as a shining example of how businesses can flourish without restrictive non-compete clauses. This episode is packed with critical updates and insights that will keep you ahead of these evolving developments. Don't miss out on this important and timely discussion!Links Mentioned in Episode:Ryan LLC v. FTC (Texas decision) FTS Tree Service v. FTC (Pennsylvania decision) If you enjoyed this episode of the Employee Survival Guide please like us on Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. We would really appreciate if you could leave a review of this podcast on your favorite podcast player such as Apple Podcasts. Leaving a review will inform other listeners you found the content on this podcast is important in the area of employment law in the United States. For more information, please contact our employment attorneys at Carey & Associates, P.C. at 203-255-4150, www.capclaw.com.Disclaimer: For educational use only, not intended to be legal advice.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in United States v Texas. In this case, the court considered these issues: 1. Do the state plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the Department of Homeland Security's Guidelines for the Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law? 2. Do the Guidelines violate the Administrative Procedure Act? 3. Does 8 U-S-C § 1252(f)(1) prevent the entry of an order to “hold unlawful and set aside” the guidelines under 5 U-S-C § 706(2)? The case was decided on June 23, 2023. The Supreme Court held that Texas and Louisiana lack Article III standing to challenge immigration-enforcement guidelines promulgated by the Secretary of Homeland Security that prioritize the arrest and removal of certain noncitizens from the United States. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the majority opinion of the Court. For a plaintiff to establish standing, they must show that they have suffered a real, specific injury that was caused by the defendant and that the court can remedy. While the district court had concluded that the states would suffer an injury in the form of additional costs due to the arrest policy in question, the Supreme Court pointed out that the injury also has to be "legally and judicially cognizable"—in other words, that it should be a type of dispute that courts have traditionally been involved in resolving. The states failed to point to any precedent or historical practice that supported their claim to have standing in this particular issue. Second, the Court acknowledged that there are good reasons for federal courts to avoid these types of lawsuits, one of which is the Executive Branch's discretion in deciding whom to arrest or prosecute, which falls under its constitutional Article II powers. Additionally, the courts generally lack the standards to judge the appropriateness of such enforcement decisions, which can be influenced by various factors like resource constraints and public safety needs. This conclusion does not mean that federal courts can never handle cases involving the Executive Branch's decisions about arrests or prosecutions. Indeed, certain circumstances might warrant a different standing analysis; for instance, if there are claims of selective prosecution based on discrimination, or if Congress has explicitly made certain injuries legally recognizable. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett joined, arguing that the states lack standing not because of the “cognizable injury” aspect of standing, but because of the redressability requirement. Justice Barrett authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Justice Gorsuch joined, also arguing that the case should be resolved on redressability grounds. Justice Samuel Alito authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that Texas does have standing. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

On today's program, new life breathed into a lawsuit against Dave Ramsey's company. A former employee claims he was fired for not sharing Ramsey's religious beliefs on how to handle the COVID-19 pandemic. We'll take a look at the court's latest ruling in the case. And, a Southern Baptist pastor in Florida faces a minimum sentence of life in prison without parole over harrowing child abuse allegations—but new state laws also mean the death penalty is on the table. Also, Andrew Wommack announces plans to pass the baton to new leadership at Charis Bible College in Colorado. But first, Gordon College was denied forgiveness on $7 million in COVID-era Paycheck Protection Program loans. It submitted an appeal, but in July a judge dismissed most of the college's claims. The producer for today's program is Jeff McIntosh.  We get database and other technical support from Stephen DuBarry, Rod Pitzer, and Casey Sudduth. Writers who contributed to today's program include Kim Roberts, Bob Smietana, Yonat Shimron, Kathryn Post, Tony Mator, Jessica Eturralde, Shannon Cuthrell, and Brittany Smith. Until next time, may God bless you.   FIRST SEGMENT Warren: Hello everybody. I'm Warren Smith, coming to you from Charlotte, North Carolina. Natasha: And I'm Natasha Cowden, coming to you from Denver, Colorado. And we'd like to welcome you to the MinistryWatch podcast. Warren: On today's program, new life breathed into a lawsuit against Dave Ramsey's company. A former employee claims he was fired for not sharing Ramsey's religious beliefs on how to handle the COVID-19 pandemic. We'll take a look at the court's latest ruling in the case. And, a Southern Baptist pastor in Florida faces a minimum sentence of life in prison without parole over harrowing child abuse allegations—but new state laws also mean the death penalty is on the table. Also, Andrew Wommack announces plans to pass the baton to new leadership at Charis Bible College in Colorado. Natasha: But first, Gordon College was denied forgiveness on $7 million in COVID-era Paycheck Protection Program loans. It submitted an appeal, but in July a judge dismissed most of the college's claims. Warren: Like many colleges and organizations in 2020, Gordon College received COVID relief funds as part of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP). But when the Massachusetts-based college applied for forgiveness, the Small Business Administration (SBA) denied its request on the $7 million loan. Gordon then sued the SBA for violating its free exercise of religion, equal protection, and due process rights, along with violations of the Administrative Procedure Act. U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell in the District of Columbia dismissed most of the claims brought by Gordon College in a memorandum opinion issued in late July. In her opinion, Howell said the SBA had sought follow-up documentation from Gordon College because the “employee count” was “indicative of concern.” Natasha: How so? Warren: In April 2020, Gordon submitted its PPP application with 495.67 employees listed. It reached this number using the full-time equivalent method, which counts part-time employees as a fraction of an employee. A spokesperson for the college told MinistryWatch. “Gordon College followed the procedures given at the time of the loan application and most importantly, used these funds completely in the manner in which they were presented by the SBA: to avoid layoffs of employees and continue to provide them with a paycheck even though the College was forced to shut down operations for months in 2020,” Natasha: So what's the issue? Warren: The court recited that in later documents, the school “self-reported” 639 employees at the Massachusetts campus, which exceeded the maximum count of 500 employees allowed under the program. Gordon College told MinistryWatch that when it applied for loan forgiveness in July 2021,

Welcome to the Hughes Hubbard Anti-Corruption & Internal Investigations Practice Group's podcast All Things Investigation. In this podcast, host Tom Fox welcomes back Tom Lee to take a deep dive in the Supreme Court's invalidation of the Chevron deference and what it means going forward. In this episode, special counsel Tom Lee joins the podcast to discuss the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Loper Bright case, which overruled the long-standing Chevron deference. Lee explains the implications of this ruling on how courts interpret ambiguous statutory terms and provides insights into the decision's grounding in the Administrative Procedure Act rather than the Constitution. He also discusses the potential impact on past cases decided under Chevron, future regulatory challenges, and the strategic considerations for companies navigating the new legal landscape. Throughout, Lee offers a thorough analysis of the evolving legal environment and its consequences for administrative law. Key Highlights Overview of the Loper Case and Chevron Deference Supreme Court's Decision and Its Implications Consequences of Overruling Chevron Deference Future Challenges and Legal Strategies Administrative Procedures Act and Its Impact  Resources: Hughes Hubbard & Reed website Thomas Lee HHR Client Alert-Litigation After the Demise of Chevron Deference

When does a rifle become a machine gun? That is the question asked in the Supreme Court case Garland v. Cargill. When the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives suddenly decided to redefine bump stocks as machine guns, many Americans simply complied. However, when Michael Cargill surrendered his bump stocks to the ATF, he did so under protest, filing suit to challenge the rule under the Administrative Procedure Act. Those of us who enjoy and exercise our right to keep and bear arms owe Mr. Cargill a debt of gratitude, but the fight is not over. Thanks to Mr. Cargill's determination and persistence, the ATF's bump stock rule has been found to have not been created correctly, meaning we get our bump stocks back. However, it also leaves open the chance for Congress to do what the ATF could not, violate the Second Amendment one more time.

This Day in Legal History: Black Sox Scandal Jury SelectionOn July 5, 1921, jury selection commenced for one of the most infamous trials in baseball history: the Chicago "Black Sox" trial. Eight players from the Chicago White Sox, including the legendary "Shoeless Joe" Jackson, stood accused of conspiring to throw the 1919 World Series against the Cincinnati Reds. The scandal shocked the nation, casting a shadow over America's beloved pastime and questioning the integrity of the sport.The players were charged with accepting bribes from gamblers in exchange for intentionally losing the series. The trial attracted immense public and media attention, with fans eagerly following every development. Despite compelling evidence and confessions from some players, the jury ultimately acquitted all eight defendants.However, the acquittal did not mean exoneration in the eyes of baseball's governing bodies. Newly appointed Baseball Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis took decisive action to restore the sport's integrity. On August 3, 1921, Landis issued a lifetime ban on all eight players involved in the scandal, regardless of the trial's outcome.The "Black Sox" trial remains a significant moment in legal and sports history, illustrating the complex interplay between law, ethics, and professional sports. The trial's legacy endures, serving as a cautionary tale about the dangers of corruption and the importance of maintaining trust in public institutions.A federal judge rejected Boehringer Ingelheim's attempt to block the Biden administration's Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program, which aims to reduce prescription drug costs. Chief Judge Michael P. Shea ruled against all of Boehringer Ingelheim's claims, stating the program is constitutional. The case centered on whether the Inflation Reduction Act's provision forcing drug companies to agree to a maximum fair price for selected drugs violates constitutional rights.Boehringer Ingelheim argued that the program infringed on the First Amendment (compelled speech), Fifth Amendment (due process and takings clauses), Eighth Amendment (excessive fines), the Administrative Procedure Act, and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. However, Judge Shea determined that participation in Medicare and Medicaid is voluntary, even if economically incentivized, and the federal government can place conditions on participation in its programs. He clarified that Boehringer Ingelheim was not deprived of property interest since it had the option to withdraw before any data submission was required.Regarding the First Amendment claim, Shea found no support in precedent, likening required communications to standard price regulations. On the Eighth Amendment claim, he noted that Boehringer Ingelheim could not demonstrate a likelihood of success as the argument was novel and lacked precedent.The case, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, highlights ongoing legal challenges to the Biden administration's health plan, specifically targeting the reduction of high drug prices under the Inflation Reduction Act. The key issue here is the First Amendment argument, which was a central but unsupported claim in this case. Judge Shea's ruling emphasized that required communications for regulatory compliance do not constitute compelled speech under the First Amendment.Judge Tosses Boehringer Bid to Block Biden Drug Price PlanThe Federal Trade Commission (FTC) faced a significant legal challenge when a Texas federal judge halted its rule banning noncompete clauses across the U.S. Judge Ada Brown sided with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a Texas tax firm, arguing that the FTC exceeded its authority. This decision, following recent Supreme Court rulings limiting agency powers, underscores the difficulties the FTC may encounter in implementing new regulations.The FTC's noncompete rule, which was to take effect on September 4, would have impacted around 30 million U.S. workers by prohibiting noncompete clauses that restrict job mobility within the same industry. FTC Chair Lina Khan has been advocating for broader antitrust regulation, including labor markets, but faced opposition from major business groups.This rule, adopted in April with a narrow 3-2 vote, was a rare move for the FTC, which has traditionally addressed competition issues through legal actions rather than broad rulemaking. Despite the FTC's assertion that it has the authority to issue such a rule, Brown ruled that the FTC Act of 1914 does not permit the agency to create substantive rules on unfair competition.Legal experts noted that the FTC's limited history with rulemaking poses challenges for the agency, especially in light of recent Supreme Court decisions that reduce judicial deference to regulatory interpretations. This context complicates the FTC's efforts to enforce the noncompete ban, potentially leading to further legal battles.Brown's ruling referenced the recent Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron deference principle, further complicating regulatory actions by the FTC. While this particular decision was limited to the plaintiffs in the case, it sets a precedent that could hinder future FTC regulations.FTC Noncompete Ban Freeze Signals Tough Legal Road for AgencyUS judge partially blocks FTC ban on worker noncompete agreements | ReutersA liberal group, Accountable.US, filed a complaint with the Washington DC Attorney General alleging that the Conservative Partnership Institute (CPI), a nonprofit organization employing former White House Chief-of-Staff Mark Meadows, improperly funneled money to cover Meadows' legal bills related to investigations into efforts to overturn the 2020 election. The complaint states that CPI gave a $1.2 million grant to Personnel Policy Operations (PPO), another nonprofit, which then transferred $1.1 million to the Constitutional Rights Defense Fund to fund legal defenses for Trump allies, including Meadows.Accountable.US argues that CPI's actions violate its nonprofit status, which requires operations to benefit the public, not partisan operatives. The complaint calls for the dissolution of CPI and PPO, claiming they serve private interests rather than public purposes. The DC Attorney General has the authority to dissolve nonprofits that fail to operate in the public interest.CPI, a key organization in conservative circles preparing for a potential second Trump administration, paid Meadows a substantial salary in 2022. The complaint underscores that nonprofits must not engage in political campaigning or private benefit operations to maintain their tax-exempt status. Additionally, another liberal group, Campaign for Accountability, previously filed a similar complaint with the IRS against CPI.The takeaway here is the requirement for nonprofits to operate for public benefit to retain tax-exempt status. This case raises questions about whether CPI and PPO violated these rules by financially supporting Meadows and other Trump allies.Mark Meadows Nonprofit Funneled Cash for Legal Bills, Group SaysA $170 million legal fee request from lawyers at Grant & Eisenhofer and three other firms remains unresolved after a Brooklyn federal judge rejected their antitrust settlement with Visa and Mastercard. The settlement, following nearly 20 years of litigation, aimed to reduce the interchange fees merchants pay for credit card transactions. Visa and Mastercard would have paid up to $113.3 million and $56.6 million, respectively, to cover the legal fees if the settlement was approved.Judge Margo Brodie ruled that the settlement did not sufficiently address the merchants' concerns, despite agreeing with the fee request terms. She argued that Visa and Mastercard could withstand a more substantial settlement, noting that merchants paid $100 billion in interchange fees in 2023 alone. The proposed agreement would have marginally reduced swipe fees and imposed caps for five years but still required merchants to honor all Visa and Mastercard transactions.The ruling means lawyers must renegotiate better terms with Visa and Mastercard, extending the timeline for any resolution. Despite rejecting the settlement, Brodie's decision cannot be appealed and would be difficult to overturn.Opposition to the settlement came from major retailers and trade groups, who deemed it inadequate. The National Retail Federation, while not yet addressing the legal fee request, expressed broader concerns over the deal.In related legal fee news, Tesla and the legal team that voided Elon Musk's $56 billion stock options will argue over compensation, with the plaintiffs seeking around $7 billion, contrasting Tesla's suggestion of $13.6 million. Additionally, firms involved in a $48 million settlement with Progressive over undervalued wrecked cars seek up to $16 million in fees, and Hagens Berman and Cohen Milstein were awarded $51.6 million in a chicken price-fixing case.Legal Fee Tracker: Lawyers' $170 million payday in limbo in credit card swipe fee case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by John Philip Sousa.This week's closing theme features the renowned American composer and conductor, John Philip Sousa. Known as "The March King," Sousa is celebrated for his extraordinary contributions to military and patriotic music. Born in Washington, D.C., in 1854, Sousa's career spanned more than five decades, during which he composed over 130 marches, as well as numerous operettas, suites, songs, and waltzes. His music epitomizes the spirit and vibrancy of American patriotism, making him a household name and a significant figure in American music history.Sousa began his musical journey at a young age, joining the U.S. Marine Band as an apprentice when he was only 13. He later became the band's conductor, elevating its status to the finest military band in the country. After leaving the Marine Band, Sousa formed his own civilian band, which gained international fame and toured extensively. His impact on American music extends beyond composition; he also championed music education and the development of the sousaphone, a marching band instrument named in his honor.Today, we highlight one of his most famous marches, "The Liberty Bell." Composed in 1893, this piece is instantly recognizable and has been used in various contexts, including as the theme for the British comedy series "Monty Python's Flying Circus." "The Liberty Bell" was originally intended for an operetta that never came to fruition, but it found new life as a standalone march. The piece is a perfect example of Sousa's ability to blend melodic ingenuity with rousing rhythmic patterns, capturing the essence of American optimism and pride. The title was inspired by a suggestion from Sousa's wife after they saw a picture of the Liberty Bell in a magazine.Without further ado, enjoy "The Liberty Bell" by John Philip Sousa. 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 Day in Legal History: Carlin's Seven Dirty Words Get to SCOTUSOn July 3, 1978, the US Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, affirming the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) authority to reprimand New York radio station WBAI for airing George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" comedy routine. The 5-4 ruling centered on Carlin's sketch, which listed words inappropriate for public broadcast. The Court held that the FCC could regulate indecent material on public airwaves during times when children might be listening. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, emphasized that broadcast media have unique accessibility to children and thus require special considerations. This ruling underscored the government's role in safeguarding public morality on airwaves, distinguishing broadcast media from other forms of communication due to its pervasive presence and accessibility. The decision sparked ongoing debates about free speech and government regulation, influencing policies on broadcasting standards and the permissible content on public airwaves.A federal district court in Kansas has preliminarily blocked an Education Department rule that protects children from discrimination based on gender identity in schools receiving federal funding. Judge John W. Broomes issued the injunction, affecting Alaska, Kansas, Utah, and Wyoming. This rule, which extends Title IX protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity, has now been blocked in 14 states, following similar injunctions last month.Judge Broomes, appointed by Trump, found that the states are likely to succeed in their claim that the Biden Administration exceeded its authority by expanding the definition of sex discrimination. The states argued that the regulation's definition of sexual harassment would suppress the speech of students who believe sex is immutable and binary, and who use biologically accurate pronouns. Broomes agreed, stating that the rule's definition of sex-based harassment is impermissibly vague under the Administrative Procedure Act.This decision is a setback for the Biden Administration's efforts to enhance LGBTQ rights. Since the Supreme Court's 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision, which guaranteed same-sex marriage, conservative legal efforts have focused on issues such as transgender bathroom bans, athlete bans, and restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors.The Department of Justice has not yet commented on the ruling. The case, Kansas v. Dep't of Education, is represented by the Kansas Attorney General's Office.Biden's Title IX Transgender Protections Blocked by Kansas JudgeIn light of a recent Supreme Court ruling narrowing a criminal obstruction law, lawyers for Jan. 6 Capitol rioters are preparing to challenge convictions and seek reduced sentences. The Supreme Court's decision requires prosecutors to prove that defendants destroyed or altered documents to convict them under the obstruction statute, impacting over 200 cases related to the Capitol riot.Attorneys have indicated plans to file motions in the US District Court for the District of Columbia to dismiss charges or seek resentencing for clients who did not handle documents, particularly those linked to the Oath Keepers. This move will significantly affect cases where the obstruction charge was the sole felony. Carmen Hernandez, a criminal defense lawyer, anticipates various creative legal arguments in response to the ruling.The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision on June 28, which favored Capitol rioter Joseph Fischer, has set a new precedent for interpreting the obstruction statute, originally enacted to address evidence destruction post-Enron scandal. This ruling is a setback for federal prosecutors who had heavily relied on the statute to charge participants in the Capitol attack. Elizabeth Franklin-Best, appealing for Oath Keepers' leader Stewart Rhodes, expects the ruling to substantially impact his sentence, as he was also convicted of seditious conspiracy.Several attorneys for other Jan. 6 defendants have indicated intentions to seek relief based on the Fischer ruling. The DC courts will likely face an influx of filings for years. The broader immediate impact is somewhat limited as only 249 out of over 1,400 charged individuals were affected by the statute, with 52 cases having obstruction as the only felony.The Justice Department is still evaluating the ruling's implications, and early signals suggest prosecutors might not concede in all cases. Some defense lawyers are preparing to argue that the initial indictments were flawed under the new interpretation. However, outcomes will likely vary, with hurdles for those who pled guilty before the ruling, and effectiveness depending on individual judges and defendants.The Supreme Court's re-interpretation of the obstruction statute, requiring proof of document destruction or alteration, is critical. This change affects the foundation of many convictions and challenges the prosecutorial approach, necessitating a reassessment of cases and potentially leading to significant legal revisions and reductions in sentences.Jan. 6 Rioters to Request Relief After Supreme Court RulingUS law firms are quickly capitalizing on recent Supreme Court decisions that limit federal agency powers. Within hours of these rulings, firms began sending updates and hosting webinars to explain the implications to their clients. The Supreme Court's decisions, made over three days, restrict agencies' use of internal judges, overturn the Chevron deference principle (which required courts to defer to agency interpretations of ambiguous laws), and revive challenges related to statute limitations, potentially leading to more lawsuits over old regulations.Experts believe these rulings will significantly boost administrative law challenges, particularly benefiting firms that frequently contest federal regulations. Many lawyers have reported a surge in client inquiries, noting that the end of Chevron deference might lead businesses to pursue more litigation due to increased chances of success. The statute of limitations decision is also expected to result in more legal actions, though some attorneys predict a gradual increase rather than an immediate surge in new cases.Some attorneys highlight that the post-Chevron landscape is creating uncertainty and questions among clients across various industries. There is an expectation that while some companies may adopt a more aggressive litigation strategy, others might prefer lobbying to challenge regulations, as many corporate clients are cautious about escalating legal expenses.Overall, the Supreme Court's rulings are reshaping the legal environment, prompting law firms to guide clients through this evolving landscape and capitalize on emerging opportunities.US law firms smell opportunity as Supreme Court guts agency powers | ReutersIn my column, I argue that the IRS's shift to a broader audit mandate for all high-income taxpayers could undermine tax compliance improvements. The IRS needs to reassess and refine its audit strategies to optimize resources and maximize compliance, particularly among the wealthiest individuals. I propose a hybrid audit strategy that ensures nearly 100% audit coverage for the top 1% of income earners, with progressively lower rates for lower high-income brackets. This approach would be more effective than the current broad mandate, which lacks specific metrics for measuring success and could fail to capture significant non-compliance.Previously, the IRS had a directive to audit at least 8% of returns for individuals with incomes over $10 million, which was a focused and measurable effort. The new policy, however, aims for broader scrutiny without clear methods to gauge effectiveness, raising concerns about its impact on audit rates and overall compliance. My suggested hybrid approach would combine the precision of the former directive with a progressive audit threshold system, concentrating IRS resources where they can yield the highest return.Focusing on high-income taxpayers with the greatest potential for avoidance ensures better deterrence of tax evasion. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration's report supports this, showing that audits of high-income individuals are more productive. By defining specific audit coverage thresholds for the highest income brackets, the IRS can optimize its efforts and expand compliance audits down the income brackets.The critical legal element here is the need for targeted and measurable audit strategies. Specific metrics are essential to ensure the IRS's audit efforts are efficient and effective, allowing the agency to allocate resources where they can achieve the greatest impact on revenue and compliance.IRS Hybrid Audit Approach Best Bet to Scrutinize Rich Taxpayers 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 we talk about the APA, the Supreme Court, and Marbury v. Madison.We also discuss the Chevron Doctrine, government agencies, and the administrative state.Recommended Book: A City on Mars by Kelly and Zach WeinersmithTranscriptThe Supreme Court's 1803 Marbury v. Madison decision was pivotal to US legal theory and practice because it established the concept of judicial review, which essentially said that US courts could assess laws passed through the typical legislative system, through Congress, and, if they determined those laws were unconstitutional, strike them down.This was a huge rewiring of the US government, as it gave a substantial amount of new power to the court system, and it provided a new check on the legislative system that recentered the Constitution as the source of all law; if the judges decided new laws didn't line up with that original Constitutional intent, according to their interpretation of said intent, the new laws would be a no-go.This is true of statutes that declare policy, as well, which are generally part of the law-making process, and also help shape regulations, guidelines, and other things of that nature—the fuzzier stuff that goes on to effect things, even when some of those fuzzy statements and implications aren't formalized in law, yet.So any and all of this stuff that Congress decides on could, at some point, be looked into by the US court system, and that system can say, nope, that doesn't line up with what's in the Constitution—it's not Constitutional—and that means the Constitution, following Marbury v. Madison, became a lot more of a legal reality in the country, rather than just a collection of principles and ideals, which is how some legislators and legal scholars thought of it before this ruling.Within this same entwined governmental/legal system, Congress sometimes delegates policy decision-making powers to US agencies, allowing them to make legal decisions in cases where Congress passes a law that it is some way ambiguous—saying that there need to be emissions standards on cars, for instance, but leaving the task of coming up with those standards to the Environmental Protection Agency, the EPA.This delegation ability was reinforced by a 1984 Supreme Court decision, Chevron v. The Natural Resources Defense Council, today usually referred to as "Chevron" or the "Chevron decision," the justices unanimously deciding against the DC judicial circuit's ability to set government policy, reminding those justices that judges are unelected officials and thus shouldn't be making law, and that when Congress isn't specific enough in their lawmaking, this can represent an implicit desire for the agencies in charge of implementing the relevant laws in the real world to figure out the specifics for themselves; after all, they would probably know better how to do so than a bunch of lawmakers who are not experts on the subject matter in question.That case also limited the US court system's ability to review an agency's interpretation of the law, which in that specific case meant that judges shouldn't have the right to look into how US agencies decide to do things, willy-nilly, just because they don't like the outcome.Instead, they have to adhere to what has become known as the Chevron Doctrine or Chevron Deference, which says, first, the judges have to decide if Congress was clear on the matter—and if so, they go with what Congress said, no questions asked. If Congress was unclear on something, though, then they have to decide if the agency in charge of executing Congress' decision has made reasonable and permissible decisions on that implementation; and if the answer is yes in both cases, the court must accept the agency's decision on the matter.If not, though, then the court can step in and make some kind of judgement; but it's a fairly ponderous process to get to that point, because of this doctrine, and they will almost always defer to the decision made by the relevant agency, because of that 1980s-era court case.The Chevron decision is generally considered to be one of the most formative in modern case-law because it empowered US agencies with all sorts of responsibilities and rights they wouldn't have otherwise enjoyed.The Chevron case, itself, was predicated on a disagreement about the 1963 Clean Air Act, which failed to specifically define what "source" meant, in terms of emitted pollutants; Congress didn't specify. And this ambiguity led to a clarification in 1981, by then-President Reagan's EPA, that allowed companies to bypass the Act's procedures by building-out new, highly polluting components to their plants and factories, as long as they also modified other aspects of those plants and factories in such a way that emissions were reduced.An environmentalist advocacy group challenged this new definition, which amounted to a loophole that allowed companies to get around otherwise sterner emissions rules, and that's how we got the Chevron court case.What I'd like to talk about today is a recent, successful challenge to that Chevron ruling, and what it might mean for the powerful regulatory state that emerged in the US in the wake of that decision.—On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court announced their decision in a case that was originally argued in January of the same year—Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, along with a companion case on a connected matter, Relentless Inc v. Department of Commerce—the Court's decision being that the Chevron deference, which says agencies can define fuzziness left in law by Congress, conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA, which itself says the US court system has oversight powers when it comes to all agency actions.The long and short of this decision—which was made along what are generally considered to be ideological lines within the court, the more conservative 6 justices ruling against the Chevron doctrine, the 3 more liberal justices ruling to keeping it—is that federal agencies will now have far less wiggle-room and legally backed authority when it comes to the laws and policies they enforce.And while the court also said this doesn't immediately strip prior judgements of their impact and consequences, it does mean—according to most experts who have responded to and analyzed to this ruling, at least—that we're likely to see a wave of lawsuits against agencies that have done things or refined regulations in a way that individuals or companies didn't like, which could amount to the same thing within the next couple of years: many such regulations being done away with, those agencies becoming husks of their former selves because their capabilities will be pruned back significantly.This is being seen as a victory by mostly conservative activists and lawmakers who are keen to see the regulatory components of the US government shrunk, their powers and funding depleted as a much as possible, doing away with what they sometimes derisively call the "administrative state," which they consider to be a limit on the free market and in some cases their own powers within politics and the economy.And among many other regulations, thousands of them, by some estimates, this could impact the government's ability to regulate environmental pollution, safety measures for cars and airplanes, workers' rights and health considerations, and even somewhat more wonky things like net neutrality and the legality or illegality of very specific aspects of the e-cigarette and crypto industries.For decades, these regulations have been to greater and lesser degrees interpreted—in their specifics, at least—by regulatory bodies like the FDA, the FCC, the EPA, and other such agencies. Congress has mapped out the broad strokes, leaving the details for the relevant agencies to sort out, because they knew this ruling would give those agencies the power to do so.So those laws passed in this way by a Congress that knew this was how things worked, legally, will suddenly find themselves incredibly challengeable, the legal basis of their specifics now based on flimsy justifications that the court no longer supports.These policies won't immediately disappear, then, but all of them, in their details and as a whole, are now more vulnerable to lawsuits from anyone who wants to bring them, and those who bring them will likely win, because the court system has taken away the protections those agency powers formerly leaned-upon.Consequently, there are fresh concerns from folks working in environmental spaces, those attempting to incentivize the deployment of renewable energy infrastructure, and those who are trying to protect workers' rights, that they could soon be tied up in endless court cases, many aspects of the legal understanding they've worked in accordance with other the past four decades pulled out from under them—their capacity to enforce anything not spelled out in detail by congress, which is very little because congress has gotten used to leaving that to them, in many cases, dramatically reduced.There are parallel concerns that standards that have made the US market relatively trustworthy, compared to other global marketplaces, at least, in terms of the safety of foods and medicines and all sorts of other products, might be diminished, leading to a bunch of new safety challenges, but also a demotion of American goods on the global market, because fewer sturdy regulations, at least in the short-term, could lead to more rip-offs and fakes, lower-quality items subbed in for higher-quality ones, and a bunch of risky, and even dangerous new products and services hitting the market, because these agencies are suddenly less empowered to check them out before approving them.One of the larger concerns, especially amongst folks on the political left in the US, is the impact this could have on health care.The Affordable Care Act, which provides reduced-cost insurance plans to folks who make less than a set amount of income, is enabled by a huge jumble of regulations that determine how things are paid for, who can and must participate—citizens and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies and so on—and how everything fits together, ensuring Medicare, Medicaid, and the ACA can continue to function, despite relying upon often arcane methods and cost overruns.The US Treasury and IRS, too, rely heavily on regulatory powers to draft new rules and enforce the tax code, which allows for the management of money throughout government agencies and other bodies, but which also helps the government develop and deploy sticks and carrots throughout its portfolio of laws, acts, and policy-based nudges.The deployment of clean energy tax credits and incentives to help push solar and wind power development, and to encourage the construction of chip-making facilities on US soil, for instance, are all reliant on the ability to divvy out those credits, to decide how big they should be, and to determine who should get them, based on what criteria.The general outline of most of these programs is still on solid ground, because Congress decides that sort of thing, even today, but so many specific details and numbers and implementation strategies are left to agencies, and though it's possible to shore those up, Congress stepping in to vote on and pass new details into law, it will take time to do that, and especially in highly competitive spaces like chip-making, and arguably time-sensitive spaces like those related to healthcare and climate change, a gap in implementation and legality could be incredibly meaningful, and even devastating to some of these projects and their outcomes.In addition to having grown accustomed to being able to leave those sorts of details to agencies, which has impacted how they make law, the US Congress, too, has become highly polarized and at times somewhat stagnant, moving sluggishly on controversial areas, in particular, one side or the other bogging down even debate about things they don't like, rather than working with the other side to find a middle-ground they can agree upon.So while many lawmakers may want to move fast to fill in some of these gaps that have suddenly appeared across US law and capability, that desire may be held up by the reality of US politics at the moment, and systems that are often weighed-down by the people who operate them, and the systems meant to keep them ticking along, but which sometimes do the opposite.One way of looking at all this—through the lens of those who generally support this decision—is that this ruling could force Congress to get more specific in its laws, and in the meantime it could reduce the amount of bloat that can accumulate within any regulatory system; some of the sluggishness in getting new products to market, building-out new infrastructure, and passing new laws could actually be reduced, streamlining processes that currently, arguably, take too long, cost too much, and provide little benefit, all because these agencies have developed too many hoops to jump through and piles of paperwork to fill out.Another way of looking at it, from the perspective of those who generally decry this outcome, is that this will lead to a huge shock, bordering on chaos, throughout the US legal and governmental system, will do away with all sorts of government supports, leaving us with fewer protections and filters that help keep people safe, and which keep businesses from abusing their positions of power, and that it puts more power in the hands of judges, who—especially at the very top, within the Supreme Court, which made this decision—are usually put into their positions by whomever happens to be in power, occupying the presidency, when one of their predecessors retires or dies. Which is why there's such a huge 6 to 3 imbalance between conservative and liberal justices in the Supreme Court at the moment, that imbalance unlikely to go away any time soon, because those unelected positions are for life; though Republicans during the Trump administration also made it a priority to fill lower rungs of the justice system with ideological fellow travelers, so the justice system in the US, broadly, is more conservative than it has historically been, at this particular moment.There's a chance, then, that this ruling could lead to a period of reduced regulatory bloat, which could help some industries and governments cruise forward with things they've long wanted to do, but have been unable to make progress on because of all the bureaucracy standing between them and their intended goals. There's also a chance this could shake the foundations of some of the agencies that have been essentially captured by the industries they're meant to regulate, messing with those relationships in a way that's arguably better for citizens and institutions, and worse for the businesses that lobbied their way into informal regulatory power over themselves.On the other hand, it could also be that progress on much of anything will be almost impossible until these laws can be revisited and made more specific at the Congressional level, because there will be so many court challenges to everything, from all sides, that the US justice system will have a full dance card for years just sorting out the basics, and everyone will be too afraid to proceed with anything in the meantime, lest they make investments that ultimately turn out to be illegal.Notably, the Supreme Court decision in this case did say that Congress could still delegate decision-making powers to federal agencies: they just have to specifically say that's what they're doing, rather than leaving things fuzzy and assuming that will be implied. So we may also see a brief period of relative chaos, followed by basically more of the same, everything going back to how it is today because Congress makes sure to include a line of text in every law they pass that specifies that delegatory intent.One more major consideration here is that the court system, and especially the Supreme Court up at the top of the pecking order, is only so big, and already often moves at a relatively sluggish pace. That means it could have trouble addressing all the little issues Congress fails to address, regulatorily, and that it will likely take the court system a while to weed through all the cases that are expected to pop up in the wake of this decision.And that means we could see a somewhat slowed-down implementation of this new, anticipated reality—whichever version we get—which could also mean Congress, and the other facets of the government that will have to change the way they operate, has more time to get their ducks in a row, maybe reducing the impact of the shock the legal system is expected to experience over the next few years as a result of this decision.Show Noteshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loper_Bright_Enterprises_v._Raimondohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Acthttps://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-chevron-regulations-environment-4ae73d5a79cabadff4da8f7e16669929https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/28/us/politics/chevron-deference-decision-meaning.htmlhttps://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/06/28/supreme-court-chevron-environmental-rules/https://thehill.com/homenews/ap/ap-health/ap-what-it-means-for-the-supreme-court-to-throw-out-chevron-decision-undercutting-federal-regulators/https://www.axios.com/2024/06/28/supreme-court-chevron-doctrine-rulinghttps://www.theverge.com/2024/6/28/24180118/supreme-court-chevron-deference-decision-opinionhttps://www.theverge.com/24188365/chevron-scotus-net-neutrality-dmca-visa-fcc-ftc-epahttps://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/19/climate/supreme-court-climate-epa.htmlhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdfhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madisonhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit letsknowthings.substack.com/subscribe

Cover Photo by Nils Paellmann0:00 Restitution Study Group (RSG) Executive Director Deadria Farmer-Paellmann 1:30 overview of suit and issues raised 4:30 Prof. Tobias Skowronek's findings on the metals contained in the manillas7:00 Dismissal of suit against Smithsonian based on mootness7:55 court order that Plaintiffs conceded points and waived arguments 8:45 ruling in OK reparations case for the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre10:30 Nigerian declaration by outgoing President Buhari 12:00 critical argument that transfer was ultra vires  13:00 Administrative Procedure Act - failure to hold public hearing on ‘ethical transfers' creates First Amendment issue 15:00 opinion on Nigeria's position 17:00 DNA research as to descendants from Esan People from Benin Kingdom19:00 Benin Kingdom's enslavement of their females20:15 Manchester Museum's 2023 repatriation to Australia's Aboriginal Anindilyakwa community of Groote Eylandt21:00 change in narratives offered by Frankfurt's Museum of World Cultures and Berlin's Humboldt Museum 22:45 ancestral dedications at institutions holding Benin Bronzes23:30 Benin Kingdom Museum in Harlem, NY 25:15 underreporting on lawsuit 26:00 shock about value of Benin Bronzes - a classic Wakanda story at end of first Black Panther film28:20 potential for justice in US lower federal courts and in SCOTUS31:00 narrative attached to the Benin Bronzes33:30 Illinois State Rep. Carol Ammons - Joint chairwoman of Illinois Legislative Black Caucus meeting with Chicago's Field Museum34:30 NY Legislator involved in work of RSGPlease share your comments and/or questions at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.comTo hear more episodes, please visit Warfare of Art and Law podcast's website.Music by Toulme.To view rewards for supporting the podcast, please visit Warfare's Patreon page.To leave questions or comments about this or other episodes of the podcast and/or for information about joining the 2ND Saturday discussion on art, culture and justice, please message me at stephanie@warfareofartandlaw.com. Thanks so much for listening!© Stephanie Drawdy [2024]

Many of the men and women who served in the U.S. armed forces are cut off from veterans' services and benefits because they were given a less-than-honorable discharge. They may have served in combat or have suffered physical or mental wounds, but are nevertheless unable to access much-needed treatment and support from federal and state veterans agencies because of their discharge status. In many cases, the origin of their need for support—for example, service-related post-traumatic stress disorder or having experienced military sexual trauma—also contributed to the conduct that led to their less-than-honorable discharges. Fortunately, DOD record correction boards can change these unjust discharges. Unfortunately, despite recent increases in grant rates, the boards still deny or only partially grant most applications. But there is another way: appealing to federal court. This program will offer an in-depth training on appealing negative board decisions under the Administrative Procedure Act. A panel of experts will share their experiences and offer best practices for challenging board decisions. The discussion will cover the when, where and why of deciding to go to federal court, EAJA  fees, recent class actions, and other strategic considerations. This program builds upon prior discharge upgrade pro bono trainings. Attorneys who did not attend the prior trainings are welcome to attend this training. To access previous recordings and supporting materials, click the link here. Attorneys who are interested in volunteering to represent a veteran in a discharge upgrade with the Veterans Justice Pro Bono Partnership, a project of the Veterans Legal Clinic at the Legal Services Center of Harvard Law School, should contact Margaret Kuzma at mkuzma@law.harvard.edu.   Questions? Inquiries about program materials? Contact Trenon Browne at tbrowne@bostonbar.org

This Day in Legal History: President Johnson AcquittedOn May 16, 1868, a significant moment in U.S. legal and political history occurred when President Andrew Johnson was acquitted in his impeachment trial. Johnson, who had ascended to the presidency following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, was charged with high crimes and misdemeanors, primarily stemming from his violations of the Tenure of Office Act. This law, which was later repealed, had been designed to restrict the power of the President to remove certain officeholders without the Senate's approval.The crux of the case against Johnson was his attempt to remove Edwin Stanton, the Secretary of War, without Senate consent, which ignited a fierce political battle with the Radical Republicans who dominated Congress. These lawmakers sought a stricter Reconstruction of the Southern states following the Civil War, a process Johnson had obstructed through his lenient policies towards the former Confederate states.The impeachment trial in the Senate was a closely watched affair, reflecting deep national divisions during a tumultuous period in American history. Johnson narrowly escaped removal from office by one vote, securing a "not guilty" verdict with a tally of 35-19, just shy of the two-thirds majority required for conviction.This verdict had lasting implications for the balance of power between the presidency and Congress, highlighting the complexities of presidential impeachment. Johnson's trial set a significant precedent, establishing that political disagreements alone were not sufficient grounds for removal from office under the Constitution. This event remains a pivotal chapter in the saga of American governance and legal standards, underscoring the enduring struggle over the limits of presidential authority.Ghostwriting in legal briefs refers to the practice where an experienced attorney, often a specialist in Supreme Court matters, writes or significantly contributes to a brief without their name appearing on the document. This tactic is predominantly used in opposition briefs—the documents that argue why the Supreme Court should not agree to hear a particular case. The strategy behind ghostwriting is to leverage the expertise of seasoned Supreme Court advocates without drawing attention to the case with a high-profile name. This can make the brief more persuasive without signaling that the case might be significant enough to warrant the Court's attention.Despite there being no explicit rules against ghostwriting in court documents, and the American Bar Association deeming it ethically permissible under certain circumstances, the practice has sparked debate. Critics, like law professor Daniel Epps, argue that it might be seen as misleading because it intentionally hides the involvement of influential lawyers to influence the Court's decisions indirectly. Advocates of transparency suggest that disclosing all authors of a brief could lead to more informed decision-making by the justices.However, some legal experts argue that ghostwriting is detectable by justices familiar with the distinct writing styles and argumentative structures typical of veteran Supreme Court lawyers. This recognition could potentially undermine the purpose of ghostwriting by making the justices aware of the underlying significance and expert handling of the case. Despite these concerns, ghostwriting remains a utilized, albeit controversial, tactic in the strategic presentation of cases to the Supreme Court.Ghostwriters Try Steering Supreme Court Justices Away from CasesQuinn Emanuel, a prominent law firm, has integrated an AI-powered tool from Pre/Dicta to predict judicial decisions in litigation cases, enhancing strategic planning and case management. The tool, developed by Pre/Dicta—a company specializing in judicial analytics—utilizes artificial intelligence to analyze various judge-specific factors such as age, gender, education, and net worth, which the company's CEO, Dan Rabinowitz, suggests, in reporting by Bloomberg Law, influence decision-making. This predictive capability is seen as critical for litigators, akin to writing briefs.The technology is designed to anticipate judges' rulings on various motions including summary judgments, class certifications, and venue transfers with an impressive accuracy of about 85%, as evidenced by tests on 50,000 cases. Ryan Landes, a partner at Quinn Emanuel, highlights the strategic advantage this provides, potentially altering the cost-benefit analysis of legal actions based on predicted outcomes.Currently, the tool is used only for analyzing federal court cases, with plans to expand to state court cases, starting with California. This AI application underscores the broader trend of law firms leveraging new technologies to improve efficiency and decision-making.Quinn Emanuel Adopts AI-Powered Tool to Predict Judicial RulingsFederal lawmakers have begun efforts to repeal a new rule by the Department of Labor (DOL) that broadens the definition of a fiduciary, impacting more financial advisors. This rule, finalized in April, extends fiduciary responsibilities to include advice on rolling over 401(k) funds into annuities and individual retirement accounts. Critics, including some Wall Street firms and life insurers, argue that this rule could hinder their ability to earn commissions and offer services, potentially complicating retirement planning for individuals.The resolution to overturn the rule is led by Senators Ted Budd, Bill Cassidy, Joe Manchin, and Roger Marshall, along with support in the House from Representatives Rick Allen and Virginia Foxx. They claim the rule constitutes executive overreach and could limit consumers' financial management options and access to advice, risking their future financial security.The rule is already facing legal challenges from the insurance industry, which seeks to prevent its enforcement through a lawsuit filed under the Administrative Procedure Act. This legal action requests both a preliminary and permanent injunction against the rule.The process to repeal the rule involves a Congressional Review Act (CRA) procedure, where Congress, after receiving a report from the Labor Department, has 60 days to pass a joint resolution of disapproval. If passed, this would proceed to President Joe Biden's desk, where he is likely to veto it based on previous actions, such as his veto of a resolution against the DOL's ESG rule in March 2023. However, there remains a possibility for Congress to override such a veto.Biden 401(k) Advice Rule Repeal Effort Begins in Congress (2)Boeing Co. is facing significant scrutiny from shareholders at its annual meeting on May 17, reflecting deep dissatisfaction with the company's management and response to ongoing safety issues with its jets. Shareholders, advised by proxy-voting firms Glass Lewis and Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), are particularly critical of Boeing's board and executive compensation, signaling discontent with how the company has addressed the systemic safety failures that have plagued its newer aircraft models.Glass Lewis has recommended voting against the reelection of certain board members, including those leading the audit and aerospace safety committees, due to their perceived failure in overseeing necessary safety improvements. Additionally, ISS has advised shareholders to reject the outgoing CEO Dave Calhoun's pay package, which saw a substantial increase despite the company's troubling safety record and operational challenges. This package includes a significant bonus that coincided with additional safety incidents, raising concerns about the misalignment between executive compensation and company performance.The dissatisfaction comes amid a backdrop of operational failures that have not only affected Boeing's share price, which has dropped significantly, but also raised potential for criminal prosecution due to violations of a deferred-prosecution agreement related to past crashes. These ongoing issues, coupled with a wave of executive retirements, including that of CEO Calhoun, suggest a tumultuous period for Boeing.Despite the likelihood that the board members and executive pay proposals will pass, a substantial number of dissenting votes would highlight the shaky confidence investors have in the current leadership's ability to turn around the company's fortunes and address its safety culture effectively. This climate of uncertainty could also impact Boeing's ability to attract a capable successor for Calhoun, as potential candidates may be deterred by the reputational risks and scrutinized compensation involved.Boeing Safety Woes Fuel Opposition to CEO's Pay, Board Make-Up Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

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

Summary Mark Zaid (X, LinkedIn) joins Andrew (X; LinkedIn) to discuss American intelligence and the law. You've heard of a “lawyer to the stars,” Mark is the “lawyer to the spies” What You'll Learn Intelligence The quirks of being a lawyer in this space How the Espionage Act works in practice  The trial of the Rosenbergs The origins of FOIA and its purpose The Legal foundations underpinning espionage and intelligence Reflections Challenging authority  The delicate balance of secrecy And much, much more … Quotes of the Week “I still love working every day, 30 years later, because there's still something new. As much as I fight for declassification and transparency, I will at times also see information and learn of events where I go, “Oh, I get it. Yeah, that stuff cannot be known. That's incredible what we did. That's pretty wild.” – Mark Zaid. Resources  SURFACE SKIM *SpyCasts* Agent of Betrayal, FBI Spy Robert Hanssen with CBS' Major Garrett and Friends (2023) David Petraeus on Ukraine & Intelligence with the former CIA Director & 4* General (2023) Havana Syndrome – A Panel featuring Nicky Woolf, Marc Polymeropoulos, and Mark Zaid (2023)  How Artificial Intelligence is Changing the Spy Game with Mike Susong (2023)  *Beginner Resources* What Is a Whistleblower? Protections, Law, Importance, and Example, W. Kenton, Investopedia (2022) [Short article] What is a Lawyer? American Bar Association (2019) [Short article] Legal System Basics, CrashCourse, YouTube (2015) [8 min. video] DEEPER DIVE Books State of Silence: The Espionage Act and the Rise of America's Secrecy Regime, S. Lebovic (Basic Books, 2023) Ethel Rosenberg, A. Sebba (Griffin, 2022) Spies on Trial: True Tales of Espionage in the Courtroom, C. C. Kuhne (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2019) Primary Sources  A Letter from Aldrich Ames on Polygraph Testing (2000) Whistle Blower Protection Act (1989)   DoD Polygraph Program (1984) National Security Decision Directive 84 (1983) Inspector General Act (1978) Freedom of Information Act (1966)  Administrative Procedure Act (1946)  Espionage Act (1917) *Wildcard Resource* John Adams, a 2008 HBO Mini-Series chronicling the Founding Father's role in early America John Adams, much like Mark, was a lawyer dedicated to the right to representation. Adams, ever dedicated to the honor of his profession, was the only attorney who agreed to defend the British soldiers involved in the Boston Massacre. You can read the whole trial here.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A case in which the Court will decide whether a plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes harm to the plaintiff.

This Day in Legal History: United States v. PetersOn this day in legal history, February 20, 1809, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a landmark decision in United States v. Peters, fundamentally shaping the balance of power between federal and state authorities in the United States. Chief Justice John Marshall, presiding over the case, issued a ruling that underscored the supremacy of the federal judiciary over individual states, a principle that has remained a cornerstone of American constitutional law. The decision held, in relevant part:“If the legislatures of the several states may at will annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the Nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals.”Marshall's decision came at a time when the young nation was grappling with the delineation of powers between state and federal governments. His ruling made it unequivocally clear that state legislatures cannot annul judgments made by federal courts, nor can they interfere with rights established under such judgments. This was a decisive moment that reinforced the framework of federalism in the United States, ensuring that the Constitution and federal laws would not be undermined by state actions.The case itself revolved around a complex dispute involving a seized ship, but its implications went far beyond the immediate legal question, addressing the fundamental structure of American governance. Marshall's eloquent assertion that allowing state legislatures to override federal court decisions would reduce the Constitution to a "solemn mockery" and strip the nation of its ability to enforce its laws through its own tribunals, resonated deeply. United States v. Peters thus stands as a pivotal moment in the annals of American legal history, affirming the principle of federal supremacy and the crucial role of the federal judiciary in maintaining the constitutional balance. This decision has echoed through centuries, influencing countless rulings and shaping the understanding of the relationship between state and federal powers in the United States.George Santos, a former New York Representative, initiated legal action against comedian Jimmy Kimmel, ABC, and the Walt Disney Co. in federal court over allegations that a prank involving Cameo videos aired on Kimmel's late-night show infringed on his copyright. Santos, having joined Cameo after his expulsion from the House, claims that Kimmel used pseudonyms to request at least 14 videos, which were then broadcasted on television and shared online, a move Santos argues goes beyond the personal use license stipulated by Cameo's terms of service. The lawsuit alleges that Kimmel's actions, including the fraudulent induction for creating the videos and breach of contract, resulted in unauthorized commercial exploitation of Santos' content. Santos is seeking $150,000 in damages for each act of infringement, alongside further damages and a permanent injunction to prevent future broadcasts and distributions of the contested videos. The case, highlighting issues around copyright and the boundaries of digital content use, is currently pending in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.George Santos Sues Jimmy Kimmel for Airing Prank Cameo VideosThe U.S. Supreme Court is currently deliberating a significant case brought by Corner Post, a convenience store in North Dakota, which challenges the Federal Reserve's rule on debit card "swipe fees." This rule, established in 2011, sets a maximum fee that businesses must pay to banks for debit card transactions at 21 cents. Corner Post's lawsuit, which was dismissed by lower courts, contests the regulation on the grounds it is excessively burdensome and was initiated too late, arguing that the statute of limitations should not apply to them since they began operations in 2018, beyond the standard six-year challenge period.This case has attracted attention from various conservative and business groups, including Charles Koch's network and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, advocating for businesses' ability to challenge regulations they find onerous. On the opposite side, the Biden administration, representing the Federal Reserve, warns that Corner Post's argument could lead to an increase in legal challenges against government regulations, burdening agencies and courts.Small business associations have urged the Supreme Court to enforce a strict statute of limitations starting when a regulation is finalized, arguing that extending this period could result in regulatory inconsistency and chaos. The background of the dispute traces back to before the imposition of the cap, when retailers often paid up to 44 cents per swipe, a cost they argued was particularly onerous for small businesses. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law's Durbin amendment directed the Fed to cap these fees, which led to the current cap of 21 cents per transaction, although this was contested by retailers who anticipated a lower limit.In 2021, Corner Post filed a lawsuit against the Federal Reserve in North Dakota, claiming the rule contradicted congressional intent and was arbitrary under the Administrative Procedure Act. However, U.S. District Judge Daniel Traynor dismissed the case based on the expiration of the statute of limitations, a decision upheld by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. As the Supreme Court weighs in, with a decision expected by the end of June, the Fed has proposed reducing the cap further to 14.4 cents per transaction, a proposal currently under public review.US Supreme Court weighs bid to challenge debit card 'swipe fee' rule | ReutersJD-Next, an innovative law school admissions program, is under consideration by the American Bar Association (ABA) for approval as a valid predictor of law school performance, similar to the LSAT and GRE. This comes at a crucial time, as nearly 50 law schools have sought ABA permission to use JD-Next scores for admissions following the U.S. Supreme Court's restrictions on race consideration in college admissions. The program, developed by the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law with support from AccessLex Institute and Educational Testing Service, aims to address racial score disparities evident in traditional standardized tests. Unlike the LSAT and GRE, JD-Next includes an eight-week online course on contracts, ending with a law school-style exam. The program, operational at a cost of $299 to participants, is seen as a tool for promoting equity, diversity, and efficiency in law school admissions. The ABA's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is deliberating whether to fully recognize JD-Next, maintain the current need for special permission for its use, or discontinue its sanctioned use in admissions. This decision is pivotal for the future of law school admissions, signaling a potential shift towards more inclusive and accessible evaluation methods.Law school admissions program JD-Next seeks ABA's blessing | ReutersIn my column, I delve into the contentious issue of the state and local tax (SALT) deduction cap, emphasizing the need for policy reform that eliminates the so-called marriage penalty and introduces an income limit. The current cap, set in 2017, doesn't allow married couples to double the deduction granted to single filers, a discrepancy that has sparked debate and failed reform attempts, most recently in the House this past February. I argue that while raising the cap could offer tax relief to some, it risks exacerbating housing affordability issues by increasing demand and, consequently, prices in high-tax states.The SALT deduction cap's impact on housing markets is profound, particularly in states where supply struggles to meet demand. The cap effectively raises taxable income for homeowners by limiting the amount of state property and sales or income tax they can deduct. This not only affects individual home buyers' budgets but also their eligibility for loans, ultimately influencing the socioeconomic fabric of communities.I propose a nuanced approach to reform: eliminating the marriage penalty but implementing an income phaseout. This would ensure fairness without negatively impacting the housing market. An income limit, particularly one that phases out above the upper level of the middle-income range, would offer relief to the middle class while minimizing unintended market consequences. The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that doubling the SALT cap for married filers making less than $500,000 would cost $22 billion over ten years, suggesting a targeted approach could be more financially sustainable.The political landscape complicates the path to reform, with recent opposition from Democrats highlighting the challenges of achieving bipartisan consensus. However, the fact that states most affected by the SALT cap are often Democratic strongholds suggests that opposition may be more about political dynamics than policy substance. I conclude that despite these challenges, advocates for SALT reform should continue their efforts, aiming for a compromise that addresses the marriage penalty and income disparities. This approach not only aligns with principles of equity and efficiency but also offers a pragmatic solution to a complex problem, potentially paving the way for rare bipartisan agreement in a politically charged environment.SALT Deduction Should Cut Marriage Penalty and Add Income Limit Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On December 12, the FTC issued the Combating Auto Retail Scams Rule (“CARS Rule”) which will broadly regulate sales activities of motor vehicle dealers. Authorized by Congress through the Dodd-Frank Act and promulgated under the Administrative Procedure Act (as opposed to the FTC's more cumbersome Magnusson-Moss authority), the final rule will take effect on July 30, 2024. https://www.kelleydrye.com/viewpoints/blogs/ad-law-access/ftcs-auto-dealer-rule-promises-sweeping-industry-changes Ioana Gorecki igorecki@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8417 https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/ioana-gorecki Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw Hosted by Simone Roach