Podcasts about administrative procedure act apa

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

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

On this episode of Ropes & Gray's podcast series, Non-binding Guidance, life sciences regulatory and compliance partner Greg Levine and counsel Beth Weinman are joined by appellate and Supreme Court practice head Doug Hallward-Driemeier to explore the Supreme Court's recent landmark decision in Loper Bright, which ended the long-standing practice of Chevron deference. Learn how this ruling has reshaped the regulatory landscape for federal agencies like the FDA and what it means for companies navigating these changes, including implications for Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges going forward. 

On this episode of the JofA podcast, Melanie Lauridsen, vice president–Tax Policy & Advocacy for the AICPA, explains some of the tax-related repercussions of recent Supreme Court decisions. One case could have a dramatic effect on future rulemaking, and the other could have a decades-long retroactive effect. On June 28, the Supreme Court overturned its decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), holding that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions, and courts may not defer to an agency's interpretation of the law just because a statute is ambiguous (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451 (6/28/24)). On July 1, the Supreme Court decision expanded the time frame to sue federal agencies, holding that the six-year statute of limitation for lawsuits challenging regulations does not start to run until a plaintiff is injured by final agency action (Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, No. 22-1008 (7/1/24)). What you'll learn from this episode: ·         Background on the Loper Bright and Corner Post decisions. ·         Why Lauridsen said that one of the rulings was unexpected. ·         Why Sec. 6045 broker regulations could now be “vulnerable.” ·         The reasons that, according to Lauridsen, the Loper Bright decision will not likely affect beneficial ownership information reporting requirements. ·         How legislators on Capitol Hill have reacted to the decisions.

On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asked whether a plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or when […]

On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asked whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or “be adversely affected or aggrieved,” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that sought to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment. This 6-3 decision held that a claim under the APA does not accrue for purposes of the six-year statute of limitations until the plaintiff is injured by final agency action. Please join us as we discuss the case and decision recently released by the Court.Featuring:Molly Nixon, Attorney, Pacific Legal FoundationModerator: Prof. John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law---For more information, check out this blog post by Michael J. Showalter.To register, click the link above.

This Day in Legal History: First US Income TaxOn July 1, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Tax Act of 1862 into law, marking a pivotal moment in American financial history. This legislation introduced a federal income tax to help fund the Civil War, imposing a 3% tax on incomes over $600 and a 5% tax on incomes above $10,000. Despite the pressing needs of the war, compliance with the act was notably poor, reflecting widespread resistance to the new tax.The Tax Act of 1862 was significant as it represented the first instance of income taxation by the federal government, setting a precedent for future taxation policies. However, after the Civil War, the constitutionality of the income tax came into question. In 1872, the federal income tax was repealed, and in 1895, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., arguing that direct taxes had to be apportioned among the states according to the Constitution.This ruling effectively halted federal income taxation until the early 20th century. The financial demands of the country, particularly during times of war and economic expansion, underscored the need for a reliable source of revenue. Consequently, the ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913 granted Congress the explicit authority to levy income taxes without apportionment, fundamentally reshaping the American tax system.The Tax Act of 1862 laid the groundwork for this constitutional change and highlighted the ongoing challenges of implementing and enforcing income tax laws. Its passage and subsequent legal battles reflect the evolving relationship between the federal government and its citizens concerning taxation. Today, the income tax remains a cornerstone of federal revenue, illustrating the enduring impact of the Tax Act of 1862 on American fiscal policy.Today, the Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the scope of presidential immunity in the case of former President Donald J. Trump, who was indicted on charges related to his conduct during his presidency following the 2020 election. The Court held that a former President is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within the "conclusive and preclusive" scope of their constitutional authority. For other official acts, the President enjoys at least presumptive immunity. However, the Court affirmed that no immunity exists for unofficial acts. The decision kicks the major questions back to the lower court for a determination consistent with the holding. Trump v. United States - SCOTUSThe U.S. Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, has overturned the Chevron doctrine, fundamentally altering how courts review agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes. The decision, issued in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, dismantles a precedent that has been in place since the 1984 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. case.The Chevron doctrine mandated that courts defer to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous laws, effectively allowing agencies to shape their regulatory authority. However, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Roberts, concluded that this deference undermines the judiciary's role as defined by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution.Key Elements of the Decision:Judicial Responsibility: The Court emphasized that Article III of the Constitution assigns the judiciary the responsibility to interpret laws, not agencies. The ruling reinstates the principle that courts must use their independent judgment to resolve legal ambiguities.APA Compliance: The Administrative Procedure Act directs courts to "decide all relevant questions of law" and "interpret constitutional and statutory provisions." The Chevron doctrine's requirement for courts to defer to agency interpretations conflicted with this mandate.Historical Perspective: The decision drew on historical judicial practices, noting that while courts have often given weight to executive interpretations, ultimate interpretive authority has always rested with the judiciary.Inconsistencies and Ambiguity: The ruling criticized Chevron for its inherent inconsistencies and the difficulties it posed in defining statutory ambiguities. The Court argued that statutory interpretation is a core judicial function that does not change simply because an agency is involved.Separation of Powers: The Court's opinion underscored the importance of maintaining clear boundaries between legislative, executive, and judicial functions, rejecting the notion that agencies should have final interpretive authority over ambiguous statutes.Impact on Agencies: The decision suggests that agencies must now operate under increased judicial scrutiny and cannot rely on broad statutory interpretations to justify their actions.This landmark decision is expected to lead to more litigation as businesses and industry groups challenge government regulations without the deference previously afforded to agency interpretations under Chevron. It will fundamentally alter the landscape of regulatory law and may very well be the most impactful Supreme Court decision this term. 22-451 Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (06/28/2024)Chevron Doctrine's Demise Would Mean Big Changes for Tax LawThe U.S. Justice Department plans to criminally charge Boeing with fraud over two fatal crashes and will offer a plea deal that includes a financial penalty and an independent monitor for three years. The Justice Department's decision follows a finding that Boeing violated a 2021 agreement shielding it from prosecution. The proposed plea deal, which Boeing must respond to by the end of the week, would require Boeing to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud the Federal Aviation Administration. The plea deal includes a $487.2 million penalty, three years of probation, and meetings between Boeing's board and victims' families. If Boeing rejects the deal, the case will go to trial. Victims' families, unhappy with the proposed plea deal, plan to oppose it in court, seeking more significant accountability and financial consequences for Boeing. This decision intensifies Boeing's ongoing crisis, affecting its financial standing and government contract eligibility.US to criminally charge Boeing, seek guilty plea, sources say | ReutersDOJ readying criminal charges against Boeing for prior deadly 737 MAX crashes - POLITICOSteve Bannon, a prominent ally of former President Donald Trump, is set to report to prison on Monday to serve a four-month sentence for defying a congressional subpoena related to the January 6th Capitol attack investigation. Bannon will serve his time at a low-security federal prison in Danbury, Connecticut. His prison term could extend almost to Election Day, complicating his communication with followers of his "War Room" podcast due to the lack of internet access for inmates.Bannon's attempt to delay his sentence while appealing his conviction was denied by the Supreme Court. He was convicted in 2022 on two misdemeanor counts of contempt of Congress for refusing to provide documents or testify before the House committee investigating the Capitol riot. Previously, Bannon had been a key figure in Trump's 2016 campaign and served as his chief strategist in the White House in 2017.Bannon is not the first former Trump official to face prison for non-cooperation with the January 6th committee; former trade adviser Peter Navarro also received a four-month sentence. Additionally, Bannon was pardoned by Trump in 2021 on separate federal charges of fraud related to a border wall fundraising campaign. He still faces state charges for the same issue and awaits trial.Trump ally Steve Bannon to report to prison following contempt conviction | ReutersA federal judge has ruled that most of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) lawsuit against Binance, the largest cryptocurrency exchange globally, can proceed. The lawsuit accuses Binance and its founder, Changpeng Zhao, of violating securities laws by inflating trading volumes, diverting customer funds, failing to restrict U.S. users, and misleading investors about market surveillance controls. The SEC also claims Binance unlawfully facilitated trading of unregistered securities. Judge Amy Berman Jackson's decision is a setback for Binance, which sought to dismiss the case. However, the ruling partially favors the cryptocurrency industry, as it supports a previous judgment that secondary sales of Binance's tokens by other sellers on exchanges are not securities. This legal challenge follows Binance's agreement in November to pay $4.3 billion to settle illicit finance breaches with the Department of Justice and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.Binance must face bulk of US SEC crypto lawsuit, judge rules | 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

Recently, the Blockchain Association (BA) and the Crypto Freedom Alliance of Texas (CFAT) filed a lawsuit against the Securities and Exchange Commission seeking a court order to strike down the SEC's Dealer Rule due to the SEC's various Administrative Procedure Act (APA) violations including preventing industry participants from being able to operate under clearly communicated rules and a lack of a fair and transparent rulemaking process. This conversation covers that lawsuit and much more. Marisa Tashman Coppel (@⁠mtcoppel⁠) is Head of Legal at the Blockchain Association and Laura Sanders is Policy Counsel at the Blockchain Association. Both play a critical role in developing and advocating for policy positions on behalf of the crypto industry while managing long-term legal projects and strategic litigation. [1:47] The trend of litigation in the crypto space.[7:16] Remedies available for the crypto industry.[13:46] Definition and interpretation of the statutory term "dealer."[19:42] The impact of expanding the definition of "dealer."[27:04] Why sue the SEC?[33:46] The "ecosystem" argument, examined& much more.Disclaimer: Jacob Robinson and his guests are not your lawyer. Nothing herein or mentioned on the Law of Code podcast should be construed as legal advice. The material published is intended for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. Please seek the advice of counsel, and do not apply any of the generalized material to your individual facts or circumstances without speaking to an attorney.

On February 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asks whether a plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or […]

On February 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asks whether a plaintiff's Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or “be adversely affected or aggrieved,” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that seeks to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn't open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment. Please join us as we discuss the case and how oral argument went before the Court.

On February 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asks whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or “be adversely affected or aggrieved,” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that seeks to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment. On February 20, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. The case asks whether a plaintiff’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claim “first accrues” under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a)—the six-year default federal statute of limitations—when an agency issues a rule or when the rule first causes a plaintiff to “suffer legal wrong” or “be adversely affected or aggrieved,” 5 U.S.C. § 702. Petitioner Corner Post is a North Dakota convenience store and truck stop that seeks to challenge a 2011 Federal Reserve rule governing certain fees for debit card transactions. Corner Post didn’t open its doors until 2018 but the lower courts in this case held that its challenge is time barred because the statute of limitations ran in 2017—before Corner Post accepted its first debit card payment. Please join us as we discuss the case and how oral argument went before the Court. Featuring: Michael Buschbacher, Partner, Boyden Gray PLLC John Kendrick, Associate, Covington Susan C. Morse, Angus G. Wynne, Sr. Professor in Civil Jurisprudence and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin School of Law Molly Nixon, Attorney, Separation of Powers, Pacific Legal Foundation Moderator: John F. Duffy, Samuel H. McCoy II Professor of Law, University of Virginia School of Law

This Day in Legal History: Nixon Nominates a White Supremacist On January 19, 1970, President Richard Nixon's judicial appointment landscape was forever altered when he nominated Judge G. Harrold Carswell to the U.S. Supreme Court. This decision marked a pivotal moment in legal history, steeped in controversy and intense political debate. Carswell, a member of the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, was initially seen as a suitable candidate. However, this perception rapidly changed following a profound revelation.The nomination's controversy ignited when a tenacious reporter unearthed a speech from 1948 in the Wilkinson County courthouse basement in Georgia. This speech, delivered by Carswell during a political campaign and preserved as the lead story in The Irwinton Bulletin, a weekly newspaper he edited, contained a statement that "segregation of the races is proper." This declaration, in itself contentious, was not the only incendiary element. Far more striking was Carswell's avowed "firm, vigorous belief in the principles of white supremacy."The discovery of these remarks set the stage for a heated debate in the Senate and across the nation. The context of Carswell's speech was significant; it not only reflected the then-prevailing legal norms, which were later overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, but also revealed a deeper, more troubling ideological stance. The revelation of Carswell's explicit support for white supremacy principles proved to be a turning point in the nomination process.Despite the legal backdrop of the era, which often upheld segregationist policies, the Senate could not overlook Carswell's explicit statements. This led to a rare instance where a Supreme Court nominee was rejected primarily due to their expressed views on race and equality. On April 8, 1970, the Senate rejected Carswell's nomination with a vote of 51-45, marking a significant moment in the history of judicial appointments in the United States.The aftermath of Carswell's failed nomination highlighted the importance of thorough vetting in judicial appointments and the evolving standards of what was acceptable in the public and legal spheres. It also underscored the role of investigative journalism in shaping national discourse and decision-making processes. This event remains a poignant reminder of the intersection between law, societal values, and the enduring impact of past statements on public and professional life.In a recent legal development, archivists seeking records about President John F. Kennedy's assassination received a partial victory in their lawsuit against the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). The Northern District of California court ruled that the plaintiffs could proceed with claims under the Federal Records Act (FRA) regarding documents they allege were destroyed, but not those merely missing.The plaintiffs, including the Mary Ferrell Foundation Inc., Josiah Thompson, and Gary Aguilar, sued NARA under the FRA, asserting the agency's failure to request the U.S. Attorney General to recover records tied to the assassination. Judge Richard Seeborg of the US District Court for the Northern District of California, in his ruling, acknowledged that the plaintiffs could pursue claims for destroyed records. They argued that recovery might be possible, including through computerized versions of the documents.However, the judge stated that NARA is not obligated to track down missing records, clarifying that this aspect of the lawsuit was essentially a reiteration of the plaintiffs' unsuccessful attempt to compel NARA to complete outstanding record searches. He reiterated a previous ruling that NARA is not required to finish searches initiated by the Assassination Records Review Board, which ceased operations in 1998.The Assassination Records Review Board, established by the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, was an independent agency tasked with overseeing the identification and release of records related to Kennedy's assassination. The plaintiffs' lawsuit, filed on October 19, 2022, and amended on September 11, 2023, also alleged violations of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the JFK Act.The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim that NARA acted arbitrarily in violation of the APA and largely denied their motion to compel agency action under the APA, except for the claim regarding NARA's failure to maintain identification aids for each assassination record and to release legislative records. The lawsuit, represented by Lawrence Schnapf of New York and William Morris Simpich in Oakland, California, continues to be a significant case in the ongoing quest for full disclosure of records related to the JFK assassination.JFK Assassination Records Suit Gets Partial Green Light (1)The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has overruled a Delaware judge's decision and mandated an independent examination of the FTX Group's collapse. This ruling requires US Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey to appoint an external examiner to investigate the downfall of the FTX crypto exchange, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in November 2022 amid allegations of widespread fraud. The US Trustee, a federal entity overseeing corporate bankruptcies, had contested Dorsey's original ruling, emphasizing the necessity of an independent investigation for the public to gain a comprehensive understanding of the circumstances surrounding FTX's failure. This decision ensures that the findings of the investigation will be made public, providing transparency in the case.Third Circuit Orders Independent Examiner in FTX BankruptcyThe Supreme Court's recent hearings suggest a potential shift away from the Chevron doctrine, a cornerstone of administrative law, towards the older Skidmore doctrine. This change, primarily supported by the court's conservative majority, emerged during arguments in cases involving the FTX crypto exchange's bankruptcy. The Chevron doctrine, established in 1984, mandates judicial deference to agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes, while the 1944 Skidmore doctrine suggests deference only if the agency's interpretation is persuasive. The court's inclination to favor Skidmore, which grants less deference to agencies, aligns with conservative criticism that Chevron gives excessive power to executive agencies.By way of very brief background, Skidmore deference, a principle within administrative law, allows federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of statutes it administers based on the persuasiveness of the agency's reasoning. This form of deference was developed in the U.S. Supreme Court case Christensen v. Harris County in 2000 and named after the 1944 decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. Unlike Chevron deference, which requires courts to defer to an agency's reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute, Skidmore deference grants courts the flexibility to determine the level of deference based on the agency's ability to justify its interpretation convincingly. In practice, Skidmore deference is applied to interpretations like those in agency manuals, policy statements, and enforcement guidelines, which do not go through the formal rulemaking process. This approach reflects a judicial attitude that respects agency expertise while maintaining a critical review of its interpretations.This debate highlights differing judicial philosophies on agency power. Some justices, like Elena Kagan, argue that Skidmore offers minimal support to agencies, while others, such as Neil Gorsuch, view it as providing agencies with significant interpretative weight. The transition from Chevron to Skidmore could lead to agencies winning fewer cases, as Skidmore's threshold for deference is lower. This shift would also require agencies to present more thorough, persuasive reasoning for their actions, potentially reducing their ability to enact broad policy changes. This change is seen as a move to balance the power between branches of government and increase judicial oversight of agency regulations.Overall, the Supreme Court's leanings suggest a future where administrative agencies may face greater scrutiny and have reduced regulatory power, a development aligned with the broader conservative goal of diminishing the so-called "administrative state." This evolution in administrative law will likely affect how agencies regulate various aspects of American life and business, underscoring the ongoing debate over the balance of power between different branches of the federal government.Supreme Court Eyes World War II Era Doctrine for Agency RulesBinance, the world's largest crypto exchange, is set to confront the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a Washington courtroom next week. This high-profile hearing follows a lawsuit filed by the SEC against Binance in June, alleging the exchange of artificially inflating trading volumes, misusing customer funds, failing to restrict U.S. customers, and misleading investors about its market surveillance controls. Central to the case is the accusation that Binance facilitated the trading of crypto tokens that the SEC classifies as securities.The hearing, originally scheduled for Friday but postponed due to snow, will now take place on Monday, Jan. 22. This case, along with the SEC's ongoing lawsuit against rival U.S. exchange Coinbase, is expected to significantly shape the regulatory landscape for cryptocurrencies in the U.S. The SEC has consistently argued that most crypto tokens are similar to securities and fall under its regulatory purview, a stance largely contested by the crypto industry.Binance and BAM Trading, the operator of Binance.US, have countered in court filings, arguing that the SEC hasn't proven its allegations of fraud and overstepping its regulatory authority over crypto assets. Additionally, Binance Holdings agreed to a $4.3 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice and Commodity Futures Trading Commission last year, with its CEO, Changpeng Zhao, admitting to violating U.S. anti-money laundering laws. The outcome of this upcoming hearing is poised to have a substantial impact on how crypto firms operate in the U.S. and the SEC's authority over the sector.Binance to face off against US securities regulator in court | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

NCLA filed a reply brief in Relentless Inc., et al. v. Dept. of Commerce, et al., a potential landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court, calling for an end to the unconstitutional Chevron doctrine. NCLA addresses two core problems with Chevron deference that NCLA founder Philip Hamburger has emphasized for years. First, employing such deference abandons a judge's Article III duty of judicial independence. Second, when a federal court defers to an agency's legal interpretation, it denies due process of law to the entity opposing the government in that case. The logic of Chevron deference breaks apart under this devastating dual critique. Chevron also violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Mark and Vec highlight NCLA's Supreme Court reply brief in Relentless Inc. v. Dept. of Commerce.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The IRS closed more than 72,000 appeals last year and its Chief Counsel's Office received more than 65,000 cases. That's a lot of disputes. Safe to say they are about rules. Following rules. Not following rules. Questioning rules. Then, there are rules about rules that the IRS must follow.  The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) is such a beast. The APA places requirements on federal agencies when engaged in a “rule making” that has the force and effect of law. The APA has become a focal point in tax litigation, due in large part to the IRS's record of refusing to comply with the law's notice-and-comment mandate. In his article for the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation, our guest – Jeffrey S. Luechtefeld, shareholder at Chamberlain Hrdlicka – wrote about challenging the IRS, recent trends in tax litigation, and the future of APA challenges. And now, he's here on our humble podcast.  Jeff is a tax controversy and litigation attorney with a strong technical tax background and a deep understanding of the inner workings of the agency. Jeff advocates on behalf of clients in IRS examinations, appeals and litigation. Previously, he led the regional tax controversy practice for a Big Four accounting firm. He began his career with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel as a litigator, eventually becoming a Special Trial Attorney in the Large Business and International Division. Jeff received his JD from the University of Missouri, Columbia School of Law. I hope you enjoy the episode. If so, give us a rating!This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation. The Journal is a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences, and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Full Court Press, Law Street Media, and Docket Alarm -- all now part of vLex. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. I'm often polite. Tom HagyLitigation Enthusiast andHost of the Emerging Litigation PodcastHome PageLinkedIn 

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief for Wednesday, January 18th, 2023. Club Membership Plug: Let’s stop and take a moment to talk about Fight Laugh Feast Club membership. By joining the Fight Laugh Feast Army, not only will you be aiding in our fight to take down secular & legacy media; but you’ll also get access to content placed in our Club Portal, such as past shows, all of our conference talks, and EXCLUSIVE content for club members that you won’t be able to find anywhere else. Lastly, you’ll also get discounts for our conferences… so if you’ve got $10 bucks a month to kick over our way, you can sign up now at fightlaughfeast.com. Now, let’s go to Italy! The Godfather Theme Song- Play 0:07-0:20 https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/crime-pmn/arrest-of-last-godfather-deals-new-blow-to-ailing-sicilian-mafia Arrest of 'last godfather' deals new blow to ailing Sicilian mafia ROME — The arrest of Sicilian mafia boss Matteo Messina Denaro deals a powerful blow to the mythology of the Cosa Nostra, toppling a symbol of the group’s resistance to police efforts to break up organized crime. Messina Denaro, 60, was Italy’s most wanted mafia boss and had been on the run for three decades. He had been sentenced in absentia to a life term for his role in the 1992 murders of anti-mafia prosecutors Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino. His arrest comes almost 30 years to the day after police caught Salvatore “Toto” Riina, Cosa Nostra’s biggest figure of the 20th century, and marks the last step in efforts to dismantle the group’s historical clan leadership. Experts describe Cosa Nostra, its fame amplified by movies such as “The Godfather,” as an ailing crime group facing several difficulties, including competition in the highly lucrative drugs market. Although Cosa Nostra retains control of its Sicilian territory and a capacity to infiltrate the broader economy, it has been supplanted by groups such as the Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta in the drugs trade. Sergi said it was not clear who would step in to replace Messina Denaro in what is now a more factionalised mafia. https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-administration-urges-judges-to-lift-stay-on-cdcs-airplane-mask-mandate_4990674.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport President Joe Biden’s administration in a court hearing on Jan. 17 urged judges on a federal appeals court to overturn a ruling from a lower court that struck down the administration’s airplane mask mandate. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had “good cause” to impose the mandate and bypass the notice- and comment period required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Brian Springer, an attorney for the government, told judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. At the time the mandate was imposed, in early 2021, “there were variants that had just been detected that showed signs of increased transmissibility, and people were starting to travel again,” Springer said. “In those circumstances, the CDC had good cause to issue this order, particularly when the CDC detailed the reasons why in this particular environment, namely in the transportation sector and in transportation settings, COVID had a specific tendency to spread among people who are traveling together because they’re standing together in lines and sitting together on conveyances.” One of the judges expressed skepticism with the line of thinking, accusing the CDC of issuing “boilerplate” language to impose the mandate without a notice and comment period. Under a ruling in a separate case, boilerplate statements that COVID-19 exists and that there’s a public emergency aren’t sufficient to satisfy the “good cause” exception to the APA. Springer disagreed, saying the CDC’s statement provided rationale that met the standard. U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, said in her 2022 ruling that the CDC violated the APA by only issuing a single conclusory sentence to support ducking the notice requirements. She noted that at the time the order was issued, around a year had passed since the beginning of the pandemic, and COVID-19 cases in America were on the decline. Brent Hardaway, arguing for Health Freedom Defense Fund, which brought the case, said that the mandate was “very strange” given that airplanes and many airports already had mandates in place, in addition to the decline in cases. Other portions of the hearing went over arguments as to whether the CDC has the authority to mandate masks. U.S. code gives the federal government the power to enforce regulations judged as “necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” The government, to enforce such measures, “may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary,” the statute says. In striking down the CDC’s moratorium on evictions, the Supreme Court found that the agency overstepped the authority outlined in the law. But the court also said the law empowered the CDC to impose measures that “directly relate to preventing the interstate spread of disease by identifying, isolating, and destroying the disease itself.” https://www.dailyfetched.com/study-finds-journalists-are-now-among-the-most-distrusted-groups-in-the-world/ Study Finds Journalists Are Now among the Most Distrusted Groups in the World According to The Edelman Trust Barometer, more than two-thirds of respondents worried that journalists and reporters are “purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.” Out of all the groups presented, the percentage of journalists is the highest. The findings also show that the percentage is the highest among the groups presented, with one percentage point above government leaders. The newest finding is eight points higher than last year, proving that people are rapidly losing trust in the media. However, when the question was phrased differently, journalists fared slightly better. Out of the groups presented, Government leaders ranked the lowest at 42%, with journalists coming in second with 46%. The most trusted groups were scientists and fellow coworkers, at 75% and 74%, respectively. The new findings reflect the gorwing lack of trust in media. Of those surveyed, 46% said media divided society, compared to just 35% who said media are a unifying force. There were also concerns about the weaponization of fake news, with over three-quarters of respondents saying they were concerned about it. President Ronald Reagan extolled the central role of the media in American democracy. “Since the founding of this nation, freedom of the press has been a fundamental tenet of American life,” Reagan said on Oct. 6, 1983. “There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong, and independent press to our continued success in what the Founding Fathers called our ‘noble experiment’ in self-government.” However, the media has changed a lot since then, becoming an entity that is no different from a Government lobbyist. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/illinois-counties-not-enforce-assault-weapon-ban More than 70 Illinois counties say they will not enforce state 'assault weapon' ban: Report Illinois sheriffs of almost 80 counties are refusing to enforce the state's " assault weapons " ban that was recently signed into law by Gov. J.B. Pritzker . Pritzker signed the Protect Illinois Communities Act into law on Jan. 10, which bans the distribution and sale of "assault weapons," high-capacity magazines, and switches in Illinois. Those who own such guns are expected to register them with Illinois State Police by Jan. 1, 2024. However, at least 74 sheriff's departments have publicly stated they will not enforce the ban, stating it infringes on the Second Amendment, according to ABC News. Edwards County Sheriff Darby Boewe wrote in a statement that part of his duty is to protect the right to keep and bear arms. "The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty, and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people," Boewe wrote. "Therefore, as the custodian of the jail and chief law enforcement officer for Edwards County, that neither myself or my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing individuals that have been charged solely with noncompliance of this act." The statement was drafted by Illinois Sheriffs' Association Executive Director Jim Kaitschuk, according to ABC News, and sent out to sheriff's departments to use or make edits if desired. DuPage, Sangamon, and Iroquois counties are among the 74 departments that have released similarly modified statements. Iroquois County Sheriff Clinton Perzee said he would not use his jails to detain people exercising their civil rights, according to the Lake and McHenry County Scanner. At an event in Quincy on Jan. 12, Pritzker told the crowd that law enforcement needs to enforce the law or leave the field. Several counties have reportedly designated themselves "Second Amendment sanctuary cities," something that Pritzker dismissed at the Quincy event. https://www.dailywire.com/news/good-things-will-happen-brendan-fraser-chokes-up-after-critics-choice-win ‘Good Things Will Happen’: Brendan Fraser Chokes Up After Critic’s Choice Win During the peak of his success, being one of the highest-paid actors of the time for blockbusters like The Mummy, George of the Jungle and Bedazzled, Fraser completely disappeared from the movie scene. While the movie was all action-packed fun with Fraser portraying the tough and oh so handsome Rick O’Connell, the actor suffered several major injuries during the shooting of the three films. During the filming of The Mummy in 1999, Fraser was almost choked to death during his hanging scene in the opening of the movie, as per The Things. His co-star Rachel Weisz recalled that he stopped breathing and even needed CPR. And that was just one mishap. The injuries he received from the ancient Egyptian-themed films led to multiple surgeries including a laminectomy, a back procedure to relieve pressure on the spinal cord or nerves; a partial knee replacement; more back surgeries to bolt compressed spinal pads together; vocal cord repair and other procedures, as per People magazine. Just as his professional life took a hit, his private life also resulted in a blow when his ex-wife, Afton Smith, split from him in 2007. Fraser was then required to pay around US$900,000 for child support, as per the New York Post. Six years after the divorce, Fraser allegedly asked the court to reduce the payment as he said he was no longer able to afford the hefty sum due to lack of work. Fast forward to today… Fraser broke down in tears during his acceptance speech during Sunday evening’s Critic’s Choice Awards. Fraser was nominated for his performance as Charlie — a morbidly obese teacher who was attempting to repair his damaged relationship with his daughter (played by Sadie Sink) while eating himself to death — in “The Whale,” and he took home the Best Actor prize. Fraser was clearly already emotional when his name was announced, and everyone at his table got to their feet and cheered. The applause continued as he made his way to the stage, stopping only to offer hugs and handshakes to a few people along the way. Once Fraser took the stage, it was clear that he was not going to make it through the speech without his emotions getting the best of him. https://twitter.com/i/status/1614819071098343426 - Play Video New Saint Andrews: Today’s culture shifts like sand. But New Saint Andrews College is established on Christ, the immovable rock. It is a premier institution that forges evangelical leaders who don’t fear or hate the world. Guided by God’s Word, they take the world back because they’re equipped with the genius of classical liberal arts and God-honoring wisdom, thanks to a faculty dedicated to academic rigor and to God’s kingdom.Find out more, at nsa.edu/ And finally, it’s time for my favorite topic, sports! The Cincinatti Bengals advanced to the semi-finals of the AFC conference playoffs, and this play had a lot to do with it: Baltimore Ravens vs. Cincinnati Bengals | 2022 Super Wildcard Weekend Game Highlights-Play 10:23-10:41 The Bengals defeat the Ravens 24-17 in a close game. The Bengals advance and will take on the Buffalo Bills… the team they were playing when Damar Hamlin suffered his terrifying injury. The Bills by the way… Miami Dolphins vs. Buffalo Bills | 2022 Super Wild Card Weekend Game Highlights- Play - 15:05-15:47 The Bills hold off a feisty Dolphins’ team and win 34-31.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief for Wednesday, January 18th, 2023. Club Membership Plug: Let’s stop and take a moment to talk about Fight Laugh Feast Club membership. By joining the Fight Laugh Feast Army, not only will you be aiding in our fight to take down secular & legacy media; but you’ll also get access to content placed in our Club Portal, such as past shows, all of our conference talks, and EXCLUSIVE content for club members that you won’t be able to find anywhere else. Lastly, you’ll also get discounts for our conferences… so if you’ve got $10 bucks a month to kick over our way, you can sign up now at fightlaughfeast.com. Now, let’s go to Italy! The Godfather Theme Song- Play 0:07-0:20 https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/crime-pmn/arrest-of-last-godfather-deals-new-blow-to-ailing-sicilian-mafia Arrest of 'last godfather' deals new blow to ailing Sicilian mafia ROME — The arrest of Sicilian mafia boss Matteo Messina Denaro deals a powerful blow to the mythology of the Cosa Nostra, toppling a symbol of the group’s resistance to police efforts to break up organized crime. Messina Denaro, 60, was Italy’s most wanted mafia boss and had been on the run for three decades. He had been sentenced in absentia to a life term for his role in the 1992 murders of anti-mafia prosecutors Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino. His arrest comes almost 30 years to the day after police caught Salvatore “Toto” Riina, Cosa Nostra’s biggest figure of the 20th century, and marks the last step in efforts to dismantle the group’s historical clan leadership. Experts describe Cosa Nostra, its fame amplified by movies such as “The Godfather,” as an ailing crime group facing several difficulties, including competition in the highly lucrative drugs market. Although Cosa Nostra retains control of its Sicilian territory and a capacity to infiltrate the broader economy, it has been supplanted by groups such as the Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta in the drugs trade. Sergi said it was not clear who would step in to replace Messina Denaro in what is now a more factionalised mafia. https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-administration-urges-judges-to-lift-stay-on-cdcs-airplane-mask-mandate_4990674.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport President Joe Biden’s administration in a court hearing on Jan. 17 urged judges on a federal appeals court to overturn a ruling from a lower court that struck down the administration’s airplane mask mandate. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had “good cause” to impose the mandate and bypass the notice- and comment period required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Brian Springer, an attorney for the government, told judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. At the time the mandate was imposed, in early 2021, “there were variants that had just been detected that showed signs of increased transmissibility, and people were starting to travel again,” Springer said. “In those circumstances, the CDC had good cause to issue this order, particularly when the CDC detailed the reasons why in this particular environment, namely in the transportation sector and in transportation settings, COVID had a specific tendency to spread among people who are traveling together because they’re standing together in lines and sitting together on conveyances.” One of the judges expressed skepticism with the line of thinking, accusing the CDC of issuing “boilerplate” language to impose the mandate without a notice and comment period. Under a ruling in a separate case, boilerplate statements that COVID-19 exists and that there’s a public emergency aren’t sufficient to satisfy the “good cause” exception to the APA. Springer disagreed, saying the CDC’s statement provided rationale that met the standard. U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, said in her 2022 ruling that the CDC violated the APA by only issuing a single conclusory sentence to support ducking the notice requirements. She noted that at the time the order was issued, around a year had passed since the beginning of the pandemic, and COVID-19 cases in America were on the decline. Brent Hardaway, arguing for Health Freedom Defense Fund, which brought the case, said that the mandate was “very strange” given that airplanes and many airports already had mandates in place, in addition to the decline in cases. Other portions of the hearing went over arguments as to whether the CDC has the authority to mandate masks. U.S. code gives the federal government the power to enforce regulations judged as “necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” The government, to enforce such measures, “may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary,” the statute says. In striking down the CDC’s moratorium on evictions, the Supreme Court found that the agency overstepped the authority outlined in the law. But the court also said the law empowered the CDC to impose measures that “directly relate to preventing the interstate spread of disease by identifying, isolating, and destroying the disease itself.” https://www.dailyfetched.com/study-finds-journalists-are-now-among-the-most-distrusted-groups-in-the-world/ Study Finds Journalists Are Now among the Most Distrusted Groups in the World According to The Edelman Trust Barometer, more than two-thirds of respondents worried that journalists and reporters are “purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.” Out of all the groups presented, the percentage of journalists is the highest. The findings also show that the percentage is the highest among the groups presented, with one percentage point above government leaders. The newest finding is eight points higher than last year, proving that people are rapidly losing trust in the media. However, when the question was phrased differently, journalists fared slightly better. Out of the groups presented, Government leaders ranked the lowest at 42%, with journalists coming in second with 46%. The most trusted groups were scientists and fellow coworkers, at 75% and 74%, respectively. The new findings reflect the gorwing lack of trust in media. Of those surveyed, 46% said media divided society, compared to just 35% who said media are a unifying force. There were also concerns about the weaponization of fake news, with over three-quarters of respondents saying they were concerned about it. President Ronald Reagan extolled the central role of the media in American democracy. “Since the founding of this nation, freedom of the press has been a fundamental tenet of American life,” Reagan said on Oct. 6, 1983. “There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong, and independent press to our continued success in what the Founding Fathers called our ‘noble experiment’ in self-government.” However, the media has changed a lot since then, becoming an entity that is no different from a Government lobbyist. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/illinois-counties-not-enforce-assault-weapon-ban More than 70 Illinois counties say they will not enforce state 'assault weapon' ban: Report Illinois sheriffs of almost 80 counties are refusing to enforce the state's " assault weapons " ban that was recently signed into law by Gov. J.B. Pritzker . Pritzker signed the Protect Illinois Communities Act into law on Jan. 10, which bans the distribution and sale of "assault weapons," high-capacity magazines, and switches in Illinois. Those who own such guns are expected to register them with Illinois State Police by Jan. 1, 2024. However, at least 74 sheriff's departments have publicly stated they will not enforce the ban, stating it infringes on the Second Amendment, according to ABC News. Edwards County Sheriff Darby Boewe wrote in a statement that part of his duty is to protect the right to keep and bear arms. "The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty, and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people," Boewe wrote. "Therefore, as the custodian of the jail and chief law enforcement officer for Edwards County, that neither myself or my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing individuals that have been charged solely with noncompliance of this act." The statement was drafted by Illinois Sheriffs' Association Executive Director Jim Kaitschuk, according to ABC News, and sent out to sheriff's departments to use or make edits if desired. DuPage, Sangamon, and Iroquois counties are among the 74 departments that have released similarly modified statements. Iroquois County Sheriff Clinton Perzee said he would not use his jails to detain people exercising their civil rights, according to the Lake and McHenry County Scanner. At an event in Quincy on Jan. 12, Pritzker told the crowd that law enforcement needs to enforce the law or leave the field. Several counties have reportedly designated themselves "Second Amendment sanctuary cities," something that Pritzker dismissed at the Quincy event. https://www.dailywire.com/news/good-things-will-happen-brendan-fraser-chokes-up-after-critics-choice-win ‘Good Things Will Happen’: Brendan Fraser Chokes Up After Critic’s Choice Win During the peak of his success, being one of the highest-paid actors of the time for blockbusters like The Mummy, George of the Jungle and Bedazzled, Fraser completely disappeared from the movie scene. While the movie was all action-packed fun with Fraser portraying the tough and oh so handsome Rick O’Connell, the actor suffered several major injuries during the shooting of the three films. During the filming of The Mummy in 1999, Fraser was almost choked to death during his hanging scene in the opening of the movie, as per The Things. His co-star Rachel Weisz recalled that he stopped breathing and even needed CPR. And that was just one mishap. The injuries he received from the ancient Egyptian-themed films led to multiple surgeries including a laminectomy, a back procedure to relieve pressure on the spinal cord or nerves; a partial knee replacement; more back surgeries to bolt compressed spinal pads together; vocal cord repair and other procedures, as per People magazine. Just as his professional life took a hit, his private life also resulted in a blow when his ex-wife, Afton Smith, split from him in 2007. Fraser was then required to pay around US$900,000 for child support, as per the New York Post. Six years after the divorce, Fraser allegedly asked the court to reduce the payment as he said he was no longer able to afford the hefty sum due to lack of work. Fast forward to today… Fraser broke down in tears during his acceptance speech during Sunday evening’s Critic’s Choice Awards. Fraser was nominated for his performance as Charlie — a morbidly obese teacher who was attempting to repair his damaged relationship with his daughter (played by Sadie Sink) while eating himself to death — in “The Whale,” and he took home the Best Actor prize. Fraser was clearly already emotional when his name was announced, and everyone at his table got to their feet and cheered. The applause continued as he made his way to the stage, stopping only to offer hugs and handshakes to a few people along the way. Once Fraser took the stage, it was clear that he was not going to make it through the speech without his emotions getting the best of him. https://twitter.com/i/status/1614819071098343426 - Play Video New Saint Andrews: Today’s culture shifts like sand. But New Saint Andrews College is established on Christ, the immovable rock. It is a premier institution that forges evangelical leaders who don’t fear or hate the world. Guided by God’s Word, they take the world back because they’re equipped with the genius of classical liberal arts and God-honoring wisdom, thanks to a faculty dedicated to academic rigor and to God’s kingdom.Find out more, at nsa.edu/ And finally, it’s time for my favorite topic, sports! The Cincinatti Bengals advanced to the semi-finals of the AFC conference playoffs, and this play had a lot to do with it: Baltimore Ravens vs. Cincinnati Bengals | 2022 Super Wildcard Weekend Game Highlights-Play 10:23-10:41 The Bengals defeat the Ravens 24-17 in a close game. The Bengals advance and will take on the Buffalo Bills… the team they were playing when Damar Hamlin suffered his terrifying injury. The Bills by the way… Miami Dolphins vs. Buffalo Bills | 2022 Super Wild Card Weekend Game Highlights- Play - 15:05-15:47 The Bills hold off a feisty Dolphins’ team and win 34-31.

This is Garrison Hardie with your CrossPolitic Daily Newsbrief for Wednesday, January 18th, 2023. Club Membership Plug: Let’s stop and take a moment to talk about Fight Laugh Feast Club membership. By joining the Fight Laugh Feast Army, not only will you be aiding in our fight to take down secular & legacy media; but you’ll also get access to content placed in our Club Portal, such as past shows, all of our conference talks, and EXCLUSIVE content for club members that you won’t be able to find anywhere else. Lastly, you’ll also get discounts for our conferences… so if you’ve got $10 bucks a month to kick over our way, you can sign up now at fightlaughfeast.com. Now, let’s go to Italy! The Godfather Theme Song- Play 0:07-0:20 https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/crime-pmn/arrest-of-last-godfather-deals-new-blow-to-ailing-sicilian-mafia Arrest of 'last godfather' deals new blow to ailing Sicilian mafia ROME — The arrest of Sicilian mafia boss Matteo Messina Denaro deals a powerful blow to the mythology of the Cosa Nostra, toppling a symbol of the group’s resistance to police efforts to break up organized crime. Messina Denaro, 60, was Italy’s most wanted mafia boss and had been on the run for three decades. He had been sentenced in absentia to a life term for his role in the 1992 murders of anti-mafia prosecutors Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino. His arrest comes almost 30 years to the day after police caught Salvatore “Toto” Riina, Cosa Nostra’s biggest figure of the 20th century, and marks the last step in efforts to dismantle the group’s historical clan leadership. Experts describe Cosa Nostra, its fame amplified by movies such as “The Godfather,” as an ailing crime group facing several difficulties, including competition in the highly lucrative drugs market. Although Cosa Nostra retains control of its Sicilian territory and a capacity to infiltrate the broader economy, it has been supplanted by groups such as the Calabrian ‘Ndrangheta in the drugs trade. Sergi said it was not clear who would step in to replace Messina Denaro in what is now a more factionalised mafia. https://www.theepochtimes.com/biden-administration-urges-judges-to-lift-stay-on-cdcs-airplane-mask-mandate_4990674.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=BonginoReport President Joe Biden’s administration in a court hearing on Jan. 17 urged judges on a federal appeals court to overturn a ruling from a lower court that struck down the administration’s airplane mask mandate. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had “good cause” to impose the mandate and bypass the notice- and comment period required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Brian Springer, an attorney for the government, told judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. At the time the mandate was imposed, in early 2021, “there were variants that had just been detected that showed signs of increased transmissibility, and people were starting to travel again,” Springer said. “In those circumstances, the CDC had good cause to issue this order, particularly when the CDC detailed the reasons why in this particular environment, namely in the transportation sector and in transportation settings, COVID had a specific tendency to spread among people who are traveling together because they’re standing together in lines and sitting together on conveyances.” One of the judges expressed skepticism with the line of thinking, accusing the CDC of issuing “boilerplate” language to impose the mandate without a notice and comment period. Under a ruling in a separate case, boilerplate statements that COVID-19 exists and that there’s a public emergency aren’t sufficient to satisfy the “good cause” exception to the APA. Springer disagreed, saying the CDC’s statement provided rationale that met the standard. U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, a Trump appointee, said in her 2022 ruling that the CDC violated the APA by only issuing a single conclusory sentence to support ducking the notice requirements. She noted that at the time the order was issued, around a year had passed since the beginning of the pandemic, and COVID-19 cases in America were on the decline. Brent Hardaway, arguing for Health Freedom Defense Fund, which brought the case, said that the mandate was “very strange” given that airplanes and many airports already had mandates in place, in addition to the decline in cases. Other portions of the hearing went over arguments as to whether the CDC has the authority to mandate masks. U.S. code gives the federal government the power to enforce regulations judged as “necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” The government, to enforce such measures, “may provide for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings, and other measures, as in his judgment may be necessary,” the statute says. In striking down the CDC’s moratorium on evictions, the Supreme Court found that the agency overstepped the authority outlined in the law. But the court also said the law empowered the CDC to impose measures that “directly relate to preventing the interstate spread of disease by identifying, isolating, and destroying the disease itself.” https://www.dailyfetched.com/study-finds-journalists-are-now-among-the-most-distrusted-groups-in-the-world/ Study Finds Journalists Are Now among the Most Distrusted Groups in the World According to The Edelman Trust Barometer, more than two-thirds of respondents worried that journalists and reporters are “purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.” Out of all the groups presented, the percentage of journalists is the highest. The findings also show that the percentage is the highest among the groups presented, with one percentage point above government leaders. The newest finding is eight points higher than last year, proving that people are rapidly losing trust in the media. However, when the question was phrased differently, journalists fared slightly better. Out of the groups presented, Government leaders ranked the lowest at 42%, with journalists coming in second with 46%. The most trusted groups were scientists and fellow coworkers, at 75% and 74%, respectively. The new findings reflect the gorwing lack of trust in media. Of those surveyed, 46% said media divided society, compared to just 35% who said media are a unifying force. There were also concerns about the weaponization of fake news, with over three-quarters of respondents saying they were concerned about it. President Ronald Reagan extolled the central role of the media in American democracy. “Since the founding of this nation, freedom of the press has been a fundamental tenet of American life,” Reagan said on Oct. 6, 1983. “There is no more essential ingredient than a free, strong, and independent press to our continued success in what the Founding Fathers called our ‘noble experiment’ in self-government.” However, the media has changed a lot since then, becoming an entity that is no different from a Government lobbyist. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/illinois-counties-not-enforce-assault-weapon-ban More than 70 Illinois counties say they will not enforce state 'assault weapon' ban: Report Illinois sheriffs of almost 80 counties are refusing to enforce the state's " assault weapons " ban that was recently signed into law by Gov. J.B. Pritzker . Pritzker signed the Protect Illinois Communities Act into law on Jan. 10, which bans the distribution and sale of "assault weapons," high-capacity magazines, and switches in Illinois. Those who own such guns are expected to register them with Illinois State Police by Jan. 1, 2024. However, at least 74 sheriff's departments have publicly stated they will not enforce the ban, stating it infringes on the Second Amendment, according to ABC News. Edwards County Sheriff Darby Boewe wrote in a statement that part of his duty is to protect the right to keep and bear arms. "The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty, and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people," Boewe wrote. "Therefore, as the custodian of the jail and chief law enforcement officer for Edwards County, that neither myself or my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing individuals that have been charged solely with noncompliance of this act." The statement was drafted by Illinois Sheriffs' Association Executive Director Jim Kaitschuk, according to ABC News, and sent out to sheriff's departments to use or make edits if desired. DuPage, Sangamon, and Iroquois counties are among the 74 departments that have released similarly modified statements. Iroquois County Sheriff Clinton Perzee said he would not use his jails to detain people exercising their civil rights, according to the Lake and McHenry County Scanner. At an event in Quincy on Jan. 12, Pritzker told the crowd that law enforcement needs to enforce the law or leave the field. Several counties have reportedly designated themselves "Second Amendment sanctuary cities," something that Pritzker dismissed at the Quincy event. https://www.dailywire.com/news/good-things-will-happen-brendan-fraser-chokes-up-after-critics-choice-win ‘Good Things Will Happen’: Brendan Fraser Chokes Up After Critic’s Choice Win During the peak of his success, being one of the highest-paid actors of the time for blockbusters like The Mummy, George of the Jungle and Bedazzled, Fraser completely disappeared from the movie scene. While the movie was all action-packed fun with Fraser portraying the tough and oh so handsome Rick O’Connell, the actor suffered several major injuries during the shooting of the three films. During the filming of The Mummy in 1999, Fraser was almost choked to death during his hanging scene in the opening of the movie, as per The Things. His co-star Rachel Weisz recalled that he stopped breathing and even needed CPR. And that was just one mishap. The injuries he received from the ancient Egyptian-themed films led to multiple surgeries including a laminectomy, a back procedure to relieve pressure on the spinal cord or nerves; a partial knee replacement; more back surgeries to bolt compressed spinal pads together; vocal cord repair and other procedures, as per People magazine. Just as his professional life took a hit, his private life also resulted in a blow when his ex-wife, Afton Smith, split from him in 2007. Fraser was then required to pay around US$900,000 for child support, as per the New York Post. Six years after the divorce, Fraser allegedly asked the court to reduce the payment as he said he was no longer able to afford the hefty sum due to lack of work. Fast forward to today… Fraser broke down in tears during his acceptance speech during Sunday evening’s Critic’s Choice Awards. Fraser was nominated for his performance as Charlie — a morbidly obese teacher who was attempting to repair his damaged relationship with his daughter (played by Sadie Sink) while eating himself to death — in “The Whale,” and he took home the Best Actor prize. Fraser was clearly already emotional when his name was announced, and everyone at his table got to their feet and cheered. The applause continued as he made his way to the stage, stopping only to offer hugs and handshakes to a few people along the way. Once Fraser took the stage, it was clear that he was not going to make it through the speech without his emotions getting the best of him. https://twitter.com/i/status/1614819071098343426 - Play Video New Saint Andrews: Today’s culture shifts like sand. But New Saint Andrews College is established on Christ, the immovable rock. It is a premier institution that forges evangelical leaders who don’t fear or hate the world. Guided by God’s Word, they take the world back because they’re equipped with the genius of classical liberal arts and God-honoring wisdom, thanks to a faculty dedicated to academic rigor and to God’s kingdom.Find out more, at nsa.edu/ And finally, it’s time for my favorite topic, sports! The Cincinatti Bengals advanced to the semi-finals of the AFC conference playoffs, and this play had a lot to do with it: Baltimore Ravens vs. Cincinnati Bengals | 2022 Super Wildcard Weekend Game Highlights-Play 10:23-10:41 The Bengals defeat the Ravens 24-17 in a close game. The Bengals advance and will take on the Buffalo Bills… the team they were playing when Damar Hamlin suffered his terrifying injury. The Bills by the way… Miami Dolphins vs. Buffalo Bills | 2022 Super Wild Card Weekend Game Highlights- Play - 15:05-15:47 The Bills hold off a feisty Dolphins’ team and win 34-31.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in March issued a controversial warning to 401(k) plan fiduciaries to “exercise extreme care” before considering adding cryptocurrencies to a retirement plan's investment menu. California-based 401(k) provider ForUsAll filed suit against the DOL in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleging the agency violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by issuing guidance without following the correct procedures. Those procedures, argued ForUsAll, would have required the guidance to go through a time-consuming notice and comment period.Guest: David Ramirez, CFACo-founder, Chief Investment Officer at ForUsAllForUsAll website ➜ https://bit.ly/ForUsAll401k~This episode is sponsored by iTrust Capital~iTrustCapital | Get $100 Funding Reward + No Monthly Fees when you sign up using our custom link! ➜ https://bit.ly/iTrustPaul#Crypto #cryptocurrency #bitcoin ~Crypto 401(k) Regulation | ForUsAll interview~⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺⎺Become a Diamond Circle Member FREE! ➜ https://bit.ly/PBDiamondCircleSubscribe on YouTube ✅ https://bit.ly/PBNYoutubeSubscribeFacebook

In 2005, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services promulgated a rule eliminating the word “covered” from 42 C.F.R. § 412.106(b)(2)(i), effectively amending HHS's interpretation of the phrase “entitled to [Medicare]” in a subsection of the Medicare Act. This amendment affects the way HHS calculates its reimbursement to certain hospitals that serve low-income patients. Plaintiff Empire Health Foundation challenged the 2005 Rule as part of a larger challenge to HHS's calculation of its 2008 reimbursement. The district court granted partial summary judgment for Empire based on a finding that HHS did not follow correct procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because of numerous mistakes that occurred during the notice-and-comment process. The U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed on different grounds, concluding that HHS did follow the correct procedures under the APA, but the rule is substantively invalid because it directly conflicts with Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the phrase “entitled to [Medicare] is unambiguous.” The case was decided on June 24, 2022. The Court held that in calculating the Medicare fraction, individuals “entitled to Medicare Part A benefits” are all those qualifying for the program, regardless of whether they receive Medicare payments for part or all of a hospital stay. Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Justices Thomas, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Barrett joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito and Gorsuch joined. Credit: Oyez, LII Supreme Court Resources, Justia Supreme Court Center, available at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2021/20-1312 --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/scotus-opinions/support

This year marks the 75th Anniversary of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This “super statute” governs the way administrative agencies develop and issue regulations and allows for oversight of agency actions by federal courts. On FEDtalk this week, our guests take a brief look at the history of the APA and how the law has evolved over the last 75 years. Finally, the group discusses modern issues in administrative law and how these challenges impact the civil service. Co-hosts Natalia Castro and Chris Keeven of Shaw Bransford & Roth are joined by Adam White and Paul Verkuil. Adam is a co-executive director of the C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School. He is also a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. Paul is a senior fellow and former president of the Administrative Conference of the United States. He is also President Emeritus of the College of William and Mary. The show airs live on Friday, August 6th, 2021 at 11:00 am ET on Federal News Network. You can stream the show online anytime via the Federal News Network app and listen to the FEDtalk podcast on PodcastOne and Apple Podcasts. FEDtalk is a live talk show produced by Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C., a federal employment law firm. Bringing you the insider's perspective from leaders in the federal community since 1993. FEDtalk is sponsored by the Federal Long Term Care Insurance Program (FLTCIP). The FLTCIP is sponsored by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, insured by John Hancock Life & Health Insurance Company, under a group long term care insurance policy, and administered by Long Term Care Partners, LLC (doing business as FedPoint).

On June 11, 1946, President Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) into law, and it was intended to be “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the Federal Government,” according to its lead sponsor in the Senate. If we were to redesign the APA for today's version of the administrative... Source

On June 11, 1946, President Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) into law, and it was intended to be “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the Federal Government,” according to its lead sponsor in the Senate. If we were to redesign the APA for today's version of the administrative state, what would it be? To mark the 75th anniversary of the APA, on June 11, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference gathering many of the George Mason Law Review Symposium Issue authors together at the Historic Decatur House in DC for an afternoon of conversations on this and related questions. The second panel session, titled “The Life of the Law: What Has Happened Since 1946?” centered on papers by four Symposium Issue authors: The Honorable Ronald A. Cass, Aaron L. Nielson, Richard J. Pierce, Jr., and Stuart Shapiro. The panel session was moderated by Jennifer Mascott, Co-Executive Director of the Gray Center, who also gave opening remarks, along with Adam White. Links to the papers by this panel's authors are available below, and the videos from the entire event as well as all Symposium Issue papers are available at https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/events/the-75th-anniversary-of-the-apa-the-george-mason-law-reviews-3rd-annual-symposium-on-administrative-law/. This episode features Ronald Cass, Jennifer Mascott, Aaron Nielson, Richard Pierce, Stuart Shapiro, and Adam White. Papers discussed during this panel session include: “Rulemaking Then and Now: From Management to Lawmaking” by Ronald Cass, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/rulemaking-then-and-now-from-management-to-lawmaking/ “Three Wrong Turns in Agency Adjudication” by Aaron Nielson, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/three-wrong-turns-in-agency-adjudication/ “Agency Adjudication: It Is Time to Hit the Reset Button” by Richard Pierce, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/agency-adjudication-it-is-time-to-hit-the-reset-button/ “The Impossibility of Legislative Regulatory Reform and the Futility of Executive Regulatory Reform” by Stuart Shapiro, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/the-impossibility-of-legislative-regulatory-reform-and-the-futility-of-executive-regulatory-reform/

On June 11, 1946, President Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) into law, and it was intended to be “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the Federal Government,” according to its lead sponsor in the […]

On June 11, 1946, President Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) into law, and it was intended to be “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the Federal Government,” according to its lead sponsor in the Senate. If we were to redesign the APA for today's version of the administrative... Source

On June 11, 1946, President Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) into law, and it was intended to be “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the Federal Government,” according to its lead sponsor in the Senate. If we were to redesign the APA for today's version of the administrative state, what would it be? To mark the 75th anniversary of the APA, on June 11, 2021, the Gray Center hosted a conference gathering many of the George Mason Law Review Symposium Issue authors together at the Historic Decatur House in DC for an afternoon of conversations on this and related questions. The first panel session, titled “Creation Stories: What Did the 79th Congress Mean to Accomplish?” focused on papers by four Symposium Issue authors: Michael S. Greve and Jeremy A. Rabkin of George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School, Christopher J. Walker of the Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law, and former ACUS Administrator, Paul R. Verkuil. The panel session was moderated by Adam White, Co-Executive Director of the Gray Center, who also gave welcoming remarks along with George Mason Law Review Symposium Editor, Carly Hviding. Links to the papers by this panel's authors are available below, and the videos from the entire event as well as all Symposium Issue papers are available at https://administrativestate.gmu.edu/events/the-75th-anniversary-of-the-apa-the-george-mason-law-reviews-3rd-annual-symposium-on-administrative-law/. This episode features Michael Greve, Carly Hviding, Jeremy Rabkin, Paul Verkuil, Christopher Walker, and Adam White. Papers discussed during this panel session include: “Why We Need Federal Administrative Courts” by Michael Greve, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/why-we-need-federal-administrative-courts/ “The Origins of the APA: Misremembered and Forgotten Views” by Jeremy Rabkin, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/3948-2/ “The Administrative Procedure Act at 75: Observations and Reflections” by Paul Verkuil, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/the-administrative-procedure-act-at-75-observations-and-reflections/ “The Lost World of the Administrative Procedure Act: A Literature Review” by Christopher Walker, available at: https://lawreview.gmu.edu/print__issues/the-lost-world-of-the-administrative-procedure-act-a-literature-review-2/

On June 11, 1946, President Truman signed the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) into law, and it was intended to be “a bill of rights for the hundreds of thousands of Americans whose affairs are controlled or regulated in one way or another by agencies of the Federal Government,” according to its lead sponsor in the […]

Win in R-CALF v. USDA Mark and Vec are joined by special guest, Senior Litigation Counsel Harriet Hageman to discuss R-CALF's victory against USDA. NCLA is celebrating an important win for America's ranchers after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and its subagency, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) announced that they will go through a full rule-making process pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to make any changes to the 2013 Final Rule governing animal identification and traceability. They will thus abandon their prior attempt to replace the rule with guidance, which has been at the root of NCLA's lawsuit against the agencies. Read more about the case here: https://nclalegal.org/2021/03/nclas-suit-forces-usda-to-abandon-efforts-to-use-guidance-to-mandate-rfid-eartags-for-livestock/   Chief Justice Roberts' Comments on Antiquities Act of 1906 Later in the episode, Vec and Mark discuss the implications of Chief Justice Roberts' comment on the denial of certiorari in the case of the Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association. On Monday (03/22), the Chief Justice of the United States gave his opinion on how much power presidents have to treat 3.2 million acres of underwater area as a monument under the Antiquities Act of 1906. Chief Justice Roberts expressed his “concerns” about presidents wielding sweeping authority in this area.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Biden Cancels Trump Opioid Plan The Biden administration said that it is canceling a last-minute plan by the Trump administration to let more physicians prescribe an opioid-treatment drug, despite exhortations to keep it from lawmakers and physician groups. Vec discusses this change in policy from the new administration. USDA Violated FACA Later in the episode, Mark talks about USDA's violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and why it matters for regulations of Radio Frequency Identification Devices (RFID) eartags. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) have violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). In their attempt to unlawfully mandate RFID eartags on livestock destined for market, USDA and APHIS set up two advisory committees to assist their RFID efforts, the “Cattle Traceability Working Group” (CTWG) and the “Producer Traceability Council” (PTC). An opening brief filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance in the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming argues that USDA and its subagency, APHIS, failed to comply with FACA's statutory requirements in establishing and using the two advisory committees to gather information necessary to implement RFID eartags.   NCLA represents the Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund United Stockgrowers of America (R-CALF USA) and four ranchers: Tracy and Donna Hunt from Wyoming, and Kenny and Roxy Fox from South Dakota, who filed a lawsuit against these agency defendants challenging their illegal April 2019 “guidance” as violating the 2013 Traceability and Identification Rule by attempting to force cattle producers to use RFID eartags in lieu of all other forms of approved identification under the earlier rule. NCLA's brief criticizes the Defendants' decision to establish and utilize “advisory committees” without complying with FACA's procedural requirements, as well as their decision to exclude from participation anyone who opposed the RFID requirements. Defendants' mandate, issued in violation of the 2013 Final Rule, was designed to prohibit cattle producers from using any animal identification options that up to now had been perfectly acceptable, including tattoos, backtags, permanent metal eartags, brands, and group/lot identification numbers. Defendants have taken the position that they neither “established” nor “utilized” the CTWG and PTC advisory committees within the meaning of FACA. However, their Administrative Record and documents obtained through a FOIA request prove otherwise. Defendants have conceded that they did not follow FACA's procedural requirements—mostly because they wrongly assumed that they should not have to. Again, however, their own documents demonstrate that FACA applies in this case: (1) the agency urged the formation of CTWG; (2) numerous APHIS employees actively participated in CTWG's and PTC's meetings and calls; (3) CTWG's fixed membership included APHIS officials; (4) CTWG and PTC—and their various subgroups—met regularly and made a series of recommendations to APHIS regarding the implementation of the RFID technology. NCLA is asking the court to recognize the CTWG and PTC as federal advisory committees set up by USDA. To penalize USDA for not following FACA's public meeting and balanced membership requirements, NCLA is further asking the court to prohibit Defendants from using any of the work product or recommendations made by either CTWG or PTC. Read more here: https://nclalegal.org/r-calf-usa-v-united-states-department-of-agriculture/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On June 18, 2020, in the case Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, the Supreme Court held in a five-to-four decision that the reasoning the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offered in support of its decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) initiative was inadequate and therefore violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Supreme Court’s decision means that, at least for the time being, the DACA initiative will remain in place, offering the prospect of continued relief from removal and work authorization to the approximately 650,000 current DACA recipients and apparently also to eligible childhood arrivals who have not previously enrolled in the program. The decision, however, is limited in particular respects. It does not prevent the Trump Administration from taking new action to rescind DACA—indeed, the decision reaffirms that the Administration has power to do so, so long as it supplies adequate justification under the APA. The decision also does not address whether DACA itself is legal; instead, it goes no further than to hold that, in rescinding DACA, DHS failed to think through important issues about the available policy options and the interests of current DACA recipients.

In a startling 5-4 partial decision by the Supreme Court, the Trump Administration's action to rescind the Obama Administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) executive order was held to be an unlawfully arbitrary and capricious act of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). But just who is acting arbitrarily here? We discuss....in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO: https://youtu.be/63wN3I85Ag0 #SCOTUS #DHS #DACA *** CHAPTERS 0:00 Introduction 3:24 DACA - The Heart of the Case 5:12 DAPA - An Illegal Program? 9:53 DHS Moves to Rescind DACA 11:44 SCOTUS: DHS MAY RESCIND DACA 12:41 The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 15:16 Kavanaugh Dissents to Kicking the Can 17:35 Discretionary Authority is Unreviewable 18:29 DACA is Reviewable (More than Forbearance) 20:35 Rescission is Arbitrary and Capricious 24:15 Reliance on DACA Benefits 28:41 Roberts Tells DHS to Try Again 30:50 The Thomas Dissent (Lead Dissent) 35:28 Conclusion *** Discussed in this episode: "DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY ET AL. v. REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ET AL. " No. 18-587 https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-587_5ifl.pdf Administrative Procedure Act 5 USC 701(a)(2) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/701 "Exercising Prosecutorial Discretion with Respect to Individuals Who Came to the United States as Children" (DACA) June 15, 2012 - Department of Homeland Security https://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-exercising-prosecutorial-discretion-individuals-who-came-to-us-as-children.pdf *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com

On June 27, the Supreme Court decided Department of Commerce v. New York, the legal challenge arising from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to ask about the citizenship of census respondents. The case presents three questions: First, whether the 2020 Decennial Census can ask regarding each person counted at each residential address in the nation whether that person is a U.S. citizen. Second, whether district courts in an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) can order discovery beyond the administrative record to examine a Cabinet officers’ decision-making. And third, whether adding a question on citizenship violates the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause.Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion (5-4) which claimed Secretary Ross did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act by reintroducing a citizenship question on the 2020 census, however because of the discrepancy between the Department of Commerce's evidence and the Secretary's explanation for his decision, the case is sent in part back to the District Court.Please join us as our expert shares his reaction to and analysis on the decision.Featuring: Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On June 27, the Supreme Court decided Department of Commerce v. New York, the legal challenge arising from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to ask about the citizenship of census respondents. The case presents three questions: First, whether the 2020 Decennial Census can ask regarding each person counted at each residential address in the nation whether that person is a U.S. citizen. Second, whether district courts in an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) can order discovery beyond the administrative record to examine a Cabinet officers’ decision-making. And third, whether adding a question on citizenship violates the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause.Chief Justice Roberts delivered the majority opinion (5-4) which claimed Secretary Ross did not violate the Enumeration Clause or the Census Act by reintroducing a citizenship question on the 2020 census, however because of the discrepancy between the Department of Commerce's evidence and the Secretary's explanation for his decision, the case is sent in part back to the District Court.Please join us as our expert shares his reaction to and analysis on the decision.Featuring: Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On April 23, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Department of Commerce v. New York, the legal challenge arising from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to ask about the citizenship of census respondents. The case presents three questions: First, whether the 2020 Decennial Census can ask regarding each person counted at each residential address in the nation whether that person is a U.S. citizen. Second, whether district courts in an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) can order discovery beyond the administrative record to examine a Cabinet officers’ decision-making. And third, whether adding a question on citizenship violates the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause.Citizenship is not a novel question for during decennial census activities. It was first asked in 1820, and was most recently asked in 1950. However, the district court in this case issued a 270-plus page decision holding that the question on the 2020 census was illegal. An appeal of that decision was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit when the justices granted certiorari before judgment, the first time doing so in many years. This was likely motivated in part by the federal government’s assertion that census forms must be finalized before July 2019 to properly carry out the 2020 census.The implications of this case are far-reaching. The federal government maintains a database with the residences of all legal aliens in this country, so cross-referencing those with census forms including citizenship could in theory reveal the whereabouts of most illegal aliens in the United States, assuming potential legal impediments to sharing that information could be resolved. This also could be a significant case on discovery involving high-level government officials, and also of APA litigation.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State UniversityMr. Kenneth A. Klukowski, Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

On April 23, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Department of Commerce v. New York, the legal challenge arising from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross’s decision to ask about the citizenship of census respondents. The case presents three questions: First, whether the 2020 Decennial Census can ask regarding each person counted at each residential address in the nation whether that person is a U.S. citizen. Second, whether district courts in an Administrative Procedure Act (APA) can order discovery beyond the administrative record to examine a Cabinet officers’ decision-making. And third, whether adding a question on citizenship violates the Constitution’s Enumeration Clause.Citizenship is not a novel question for during decennial census activities. It was first asked in 1820, and was most recently asked in 1950. However, the district court in this case issued a 270-plus page decision holding that the question on the 2020 census was illegal. An appeal of that decision was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit when the justices granted certiorari before judgment, the first time doing so in many years. This was likely motivated in part by the federal government’s assertion that census forms must be finalized before July 2019 to properly carry out the 2020 census.The implications of this case are far-reaching. The federal government maintains a database with the residences of all legal aliens in this country, so cross-referencing those with census forms including citizenship could in theory reveal the whereabouts of most illegal aliens in the United States, assuming potential legal impediments to sharing that information could be resolved. This also could be a significant case on discovery involving high-level government officials, and also of APA litigation.Featuring:Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Professor Emeritus, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State UniversityMr. Kenneth A. Klukowski, Senior Fellow, American Civil Rights Union Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on our website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The inclusion of the citizenship question on the 2020 census remains both uncertain and controversial. On January 15, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court in Manhattan issued an opinion blocking the Commerce Department from including a citizenship question. The opinion states that Secretary Ross violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in various ways, including making an “arbitrary” and “capricious” decision to include the citizenship question. The opinion also posits that Secretary Ross violated the APA by failing to justify departures from past policies and practices, and failing to notify Congress of census subjects three years in advance. Judge Furman further believed that Secretary Ross' reasoning for including the citizenship question was "pretextual." However, he did not find that the plaintiffs carried their burden of proof showing that Ross' decision was pretext for impermissible discrimination.Solicitor General Noel Francisco said on January 22 that the Department of Justice plans to file a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment with a proposal for expedited briefing to allow for oral argument and decision by the end of June, so the census questions can be printed on time. Francisco believes the issue is of such "imperative public importance" that it justifies altering the normal procedure of the Supreme Court to wait until the federal appeals court has had a chance to opine on the case. John Baker joins us to discuss the Solicitor General’s petition, and the likely future of the citizenship question.Featuring: Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The inclusion of the citizenship question on the 2020 census remains both uncertain and controversial. On January 15, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court in Manhattan issued an opinion blocking the Commerce Department from including a citizenship question. The opinion states that Secretary Ross violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in various ways, including making an “arbitrary” and “capricious” decision to include the citizenship question. The opinion also posits that Secretary Ross violated the APA by failing to justify departures from past policies and practices, and failing to notify Congress of census subjects three years in advance. Judge Furman further believed that Secretary Ross' reasoning for including the citizenship question was "pretextual." However, he did not find that the plaintiffs carried their burden of proof showing that Ross' decision was pretext for impermissible discrimination.Solicitor General Noel Francisco said on January 22 that the Department of Justice plans to file a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment with a proposal for expedited briefing to allow for oral argument and decision by the end of June, so the census questions can be printed on time. Francisco believes the issue is of such "imperative public importance" that it justifies altering the normal procedure of the Supreme Court to wait until the federal appeals court has had a chance to opine on the case. John Baker joins us to discuss the Solicitor General’s petition, and the likely future of the citizenship question.Featuring: Dr. John S. Baker, Jr., Visiting Professor, Georgetown Law Teleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up on the website. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

The administrative state, with roots over a century old, was founded on the premise that Congress lacked the expertise to deal with the many complex issues facing government in a fast-changing country, and that it was unhelpfully mired in and influenced by politics, leading to bad outcomes when it did act. The alternative was to establish administrative agencies, each with assigned areas of responsibility, housing learned experts qualified to make policy decisions, deliberately insulated from political accountability. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), passed in 1946, both governs the manner in which agencies may adopt and enforce regulations, and provides for judicial review of agency action. Supporters of the administrative state point to the successes of agency actions leading to a cleaner environment, more sensible use of finite resources, healthier foods, safety on the roads and rails, and many other areas of improved quality of life. But even looking past structural separation of powers issues written into the bones of the administrative state, critics assert that in the ensuing 70 years the APA has become an ineffective limitation an agency power, as agencies bypassed its requirements by issuing sub-regulatory guidance, letters, FAQs, and more. Compounding the problem, the critics continue, the courts have adopted a policy of deference to agency actions that grant agencies even more latitude. Is it time to revisit the APA? If so, how should it be updated?Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Kathryn Kovacs, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School Prof. Jon Michaels, Professor of Law, UCLA School Of LawModerator: Hon. Britt Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

The administrative state, with roots over a century old, was founded on the premise that Congress lacked the expertise to deal with the many complex issues facing government in a fast-changing country, and that it was unhelpfully mired in and influenced by politics, leading to bad outcomes when it did act. The alternative was to establish administrative agencies, each with assigned areas of responsibility, housing learned experts qualified to make policy decisions, deliberately insulated from political accountability. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), passed in 1946, both governs the manner in which agencies may adopt and enforce regulations, and provides for judicial review of agency action. Supporters of the administrative state point to the successes of agency actions leading to a cleaner environment, more sensible use of finite resources, healthier foods, safety on the roads and rails, and many other areas of improved quality of life. But even looking past structural separation of powers issues written into the bones of the administrative state, critics assert that in the ensuing 70 years the APA has become an ineffective limitation an agency power, as agencies bypassed its requirements by issuing sub-regulatory guidance, letters, FAQs, and more. Compounding the problem, the critics continue, the courts have adopted a policy of deference to agency actions that grant agencies even more latitude. Is it time to revisit the APA? If so, how should it be updated?Prof. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law and Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University School of LawProf. Philip Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolProf. Kathryn Kovacs, Professor of Law, Rutgers Law School Prof. Jon Michaels, Professor of Law, UCLA School Of LawModerator: Hon. Britt Grant, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Did you know that you have a say in the U.S. government’s regulatory process?The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that most regulations promulgated by administrative agencies go through a process called “notice and comment rulemaking.” Stripped to its basics, that means that the agency must give notice of a proposed rulemaking and then give the public a chance to comment. The law allows ordinary citizens, as much as sophisticated interest groups, opportunities to participate in, and have opinions heard on, the development of regulations. In a recent article (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3006157), Professor Donald Kochan calls this the underappreciated “commenting power.” The duty for agencies to consider and respond to significant comments is what makes commenting so powerful. In addition to Professor Kochan's article, Argive — a Silicon Valley non-profit that seeks to make regulatory processes more accountable and accessible to all — recently issued a report (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/586bee97c534a5731df8f6c4/t/5942c4c0be6594acc08fa2a5/1497547972474/Argive+Improving+Regulations.gov-2.pdf) on what they perceived as deficiencies in and suggested solutions for the actual commenting system.In this live podcast, Professor Kochan will explain the commenting process, the scope of agencies duties to respond to comments, and why it is important to comment whether you support or oppose a rule. The podcast will also discuss some recent and older examples of cases where agency’s failure to take comments seriously has invalidated or jeopardized rulemaking efforts. Maleka Momand, co-author of the Argive report and former President of Argive, will cover the points raised and solutions suggested in the report. Both speakers may also comment on a new Administrative Conference of the U.S. project studying public engagement in rulemaking (https://www.acus.gov/research-projects/public-engagement-rulemaking).Featuring:- Donald J. Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law- Maleka Momand, Co-Founder and CEO, Esper, Former-President, ArgiveVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Did you know that you have a say in the U.S. government’s regulatory process?The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that most regulations promulgated by administrative agencies go through a process called “notice and comment rulemaking.” Stripped to its basics, that means that the agency must give notice of a proposed rulemaking and then give the public a chance to comment. The law allows ordinary citizens, as much as sophisticated interest groups, opportunities to participate in, and have opinions heard on, the development of regulations. In a recent article (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3006157), Professor Donald Kochan calls this the underappreciated “commenting power.” The duty for agencies to consider and respond to significant comments is what makes commenting so powerful. In addition to Professor Kochan's article, Argive — a Silicon Valley non-profit that seeks to make regulatory processes more accountable and accessible to all — recently issued a report (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/586bee97c534a5731df8f6c4/t/5942c4c0be6594acc08fa2a5/1497547972474/Argive+Improving+Regulations.gov-2.pdf) on what they perceived as deficiencies in and suggested solutions for the actual commenting system.In this live podcast, Professor Kochan will explain the commenting process, the scope of agencies duties to respond to comments, and why it is important to comment whether you support or oppose a rule. The podcast will also discuss some recent and older examples of cases where agency’s failure to take comments seriously has invalidated or jeopardized rulemaking efforts. Maleka Momand, co-author of the Argive report and former President of Argive, will cover the points raised and solutions suggested in the report. Both speakers may also comment on a new Administrative Conference of the U.S. project studying public engagement in rulemaking (https://www.acus.gov/research-projects/public-engagement-rulemaking).Featuring:- Donald J. Kochan, Parker S. Kennedy Professor in Law and Associate Dean for Research & Faculty Development, Chapman University Dale E. Fowler School of Law- Maleka Momand, Co-Founder and CEO, Esper, Former-President, ArgiveVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

On June 23, 2016, the Supreme Court decided United States v. Texas. This case relates back to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which set forth special criteria to direct how DHS should exercise prosecutorial discretion in enforcing federal immigration laws against certain young persons. In 2014, DHS issued a memo that then expanded eligibility under DACA and directed establishment of a similar program for the parents of DACA-eligible persons: Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). -- Twenty-six states sued in federal district court to prevent the DHS from implementing DAPA, arguing that DAPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it had not gone through a notice-and-comment process, and was moreover arbitrary and capricious. The states also argued that DAPA abrogated the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The district court concluded that of the suing states, Texas had standing, and temporarily enjoined implementation of DAPA after determining that Texas had shown a substantial likelihood of success on its notice-and-comment claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling, and further held that the other states had standing and has shown a substantial likelihood of success on both the notice-and-comment and arbitrary and capricious components of their APA claims. The Fifth Circuit did not reach the Take Care clause claim. -- The four questions before the Supreme Court in this case were: (1) whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the APA to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action; (2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law; (3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures; and (4) whether the guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3--a question the Court itself directed the parties to brief. -- An equally divided Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Fifth Circuit in a single sentence per curiam opinion, thereby leaving the district court’s injunction in place. -- To discuss the case, we have Josh Blackman, who is Assistant Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law.

On April 18, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in United States v. Texas. This case relates back to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which set forth special criteria to direct how DHS should exercise prosecutorial discretion in enforcing federal immigration laws against certain young persons. In 2014 DHS issued a memo that then expanded eligibility under DACA and directed establishment of a similar program for the parents of DACA-eligible persons: Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). -- Twenty-six states sued in federal district court to prevent the DHS from implementing DAPA, arguing that DAPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it had not gone through a notice-and-comment process, and was moreover arbitrary and capricious. The states also argued that DAPA abrogated the President’s constitutional duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The district court concluded that of the suing states, Texas had standing, and temporarily enjoined implementation of DAPA after determining that Texas had shown a substantial likelihood of success on its notice-and-comment claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed that ruling, and further held that the other states had standing and has shown a substantial likelihood of success on both the notice-and-comment and arbitrary and capricious components of their APA claims. The Fifth Circuit did not reach the Take Care clause claim. -- The four questions before the Supreme Court in this case are: (1) whether a state that voluntarily provides a subsidy to all aliens with deferred action has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the APA to challenge the Secretary of Homeland Security’s guidance seeking to establish a process for considering deferred action for certain aliens because it will lead to more aliens having deferred action; (2) whether the guidance is arbitrary and capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law; (3) whether the guidance was subject to the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures; and (4) whether the guidance violates the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, Article II, section 3--a question the Court itself directed the parties to brief. -- To discuss the case, we have Josh Blackman, who is Assistant Professor of Law at South Texas College of Law.

On this episode, we review the Court's oral arguments in United States v. Texas, which considers whether a State has Article III standing and a justiciable cause of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq., to challenge the Secretary’s exercise of immigration enforcement discretion, simply because an increase in the number of immigrants receiving deferred action might ultimately increase the net costs of the State’s driver’s license program.