Podcasts about jarkesy

Is presidential power out of control, or are we witnessing a necessary correction to decades of bureaucratic overreach? When Trump fired Wilcox from the NLRB, it sparked a constitutional showdown about who really controls the executive branch - and the implications could reshape American governance. Studio Sponsor: Cardio Miracle - "Unlock the secret to a healthier heart, increased energy levels, and transform your cardiovascular fitness like never before.": https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart Ryan Silverstein, JD candidate at Villanova University, breaks down the explosive battle between President Trump and the administrative state. This isn't just about one firing - it's about whether unelected bureaucrats can create policy without accountability to voters. As Silverstein explains, independent agencies have operated with unprecedented autonomy for decades, making rules that affect millions of Americans without direct oversight. The conversation dives deep into constitutional principles, exploring how the "unitary executive theory" challenges a century of precedent established since Humphrey's Executor in 1935. With the conservative Supreme Court already chipping away at administrative power through recent cases like Loper Bright and SEC v. Jarkesy, this confrontation could be the tipping point that fundamentally restructures government. Brian and Ryan examine the troubling delegation of congressional authority to unelected experts - a trend dramatically accelerated during COVID when "trust the science" became a mandate rather than guidance. The discussion highlights how both parties have abdicated their responsibilities, preferring to pass accountability to faceless bureaucracies rather than face voters with difficult policy choices. The stakes couldn't be higher: will this case return policy-making to elected officials, or will the administrative state continue growing unchecked? As Silverstein concludes, the founders envisioned citizens actively involved in governance, not passively accepting expert rule. This episode offers a master class in constitutional principles and a wake-up call about the future of American democracy. ❤️ Order Cardio Miracle (https://www.briannicholsshow.com/heart) with code TBNS at checkout for 15% off and take a step towards better heart health and overall well-being!

Hello, and welcome back to Bank Nerd Corner, the first Bank Nerd Corner of 2025. I'm Alex Johnson, joined as always by the brilliant Kiah Haslett, Banking and Fintech Editor at Bank Director.  Here's what we're unpacking this week. First up, the CFPB has sued the biggest names in banking—Bank of America, Wells Fargo, JPMorgan Chase—along with Early Warning Services (EWS), the backbone of Zelle, for allegedly dropping the ball on fraud protections. With over $870M lost to scams since 2017, we're asking: Are banks scapegoats for a bigger mess involving social media and telecoms? Ultimately, how much consumer protection is enough—and who pays the price? Next up, two cases—Loper Bright (aka Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo) and Jarkesy (aka SEC v. Jarkesy)—are shaking up regulatory agencies like the Fed and FDIC. Are we going to see a power shift or a regulatory takedown? If the Fed blinks first, do banks get to rewrite the rules—and does "too big to fail" become DIY? Then there's the disclosure debate. Can companies like Zelle or the FDIC "warn away" liability with fine print? If streamlined experiences make users vulnerable, will regulators demand clearer disclosures? Is it the end of seamless user experience...and trust as we know it? Finally, don't miss our 2025 predictions. Could Capital One acquiring Discover signal a regulatory shift favoring big bank M&A? Will a fintech actually grab a bank charter this year?  Oh hello, New Year; you're going to be wild!

Axon and Jarkesy have renewed scrutiny of the constitutionality and fairness of FTC’s administrative litigation. For example, the President cannot remove Administrative Law Judges nor FTC Commissioners, and FTC Commissioners both vote to issue the complaint and decide its merits in proceedings. Parties before the DOJ-Antitrust Division, on the other hand, go directly before an Article III judge, and avoid administrative litigation altogether. This panel, featuring the former FTC Acting Chairman, Commission advisors, and administrative law experts, discussed these and other constitutional challenges to FTC’s administrative litigation. If the courts ultimately uphold constitutionality, is Congressional reform warranted? Should FTC’s administrative tribunal be abolished altogether? Or are internal process reforms sufficient to afford fairer process? Keith Klovers' article, "Three Options for Reforming Part 3 Administrative Litigation at the Federal Trade Commission," as referenced in the discussion.

In this installment of our Safety Perspectives From the Dallas Region podcast series, shareholders Frank Davis (Dallas) and John Surma (Houston) discuss the implications of a recent federal court ruling that extends the Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, barring the use of administrative law judges (ALJs) in certain matters before the SEC. In November 2024, a federal district court judge in Texas expanded the bar to include ALJs at the U.S. Department of Labor—a decision that could potentially affect OSHA's adjudication procedures. John and Frank's discussion highlights the uncertainty and backlog this situation could create within the federal court system. They also examine the future of administrative law proceedings—particularly for employers facing OSHA actions.

In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the statutory scheme that empowers the Securities and Exchange Commission violate the Seventh Amendment, the nondelegation doctrine, or Article II of the U-S Constitution?    The case was decided on June 27, 2024. The Supreme Court held that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial. Chief Justice John Roberts authored the 6-3 majority opinion of the Court. First, the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial applies to this SEC enforcement action. The claims are "legal in nature" and closely resemble common law fraud actions. The substance of the claim matters more than its statutory origin or which branch of government brings the action. Moreover, the civil penalties sought are punitive in nature, which is a type of remedy traditionally provided by courts of law rather than courts of equity. Second, the "public rights" exception to the Seventh Amendment does not apply here because this case does not fall within the narrow categories of matters that have historically been exclusively determined by the executive and legislative branches. The mere facts that Congress assigned the matter to an agency and that the government is the plaintiff do not change this outcome. Unlike the novel regulatory scheme in Atlas Roofing, these SEC fraud claims have close analogues in traditional common law actions that were historically adjudicated by courts with juries. Because this action is essentially a common law fraud suit seeking punitive remedies, it must be heard by an Article III court with a jury, despite Congress assigning it to an administrative proceeding. This conclusion preserves the constitutional separation of powers and the role of juries in adjudicating traditional legal claims. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, in which Justice Clarence Thomas joined. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

The Supreme Court’s most recent term was one of significance with respect to the separation of powers. The Court held that the President is immune from criminal prosecution for most official acts. The Court also overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright v. Raimondo and determined that administrative agencies typically cannot impose civil penalties against individuals without a jury trial in SEC v. Jarkesy. These cases followed not long after the Supreme Court’s express recognition of the major-questions doctrine in West Virginia v. EPA. Yet the Supreme Court also upheld the CFPB’s novel funding method in the face of an Appropriation Clause challenge, issued an important opinion bearing on facial challenges in Moody v. NetChoice, and rejected a petition asking that it reconsider the nondelegation doctrine. What is driving these decisions—originalism, history, or pragmatic concerns? What issues might be ripe for further development or reexamination—nondelegation, removal restrictions on officers, the major questions doctrine, or something else? And how should advocates think about separation of powers challenges moving forward, in the context of both strategic and corporate litigation?FeaturingMr. Russell Balikian, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLPMs. Zhonette Brown, General Counsel and Senior Litigation Counsel, New Civil Liberties AllianceMr. Roman Martinez, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLPMr. Luke McCloud, Partner, Williams & ConnollyModerator: Hon. Daniel Bress, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Reducing the cost of prescription drugs has been a bipartisan priority for years. One recent effort is the Preserve Access to Affordadble Generics and Biosimilars Act (S. 142), sponsored by Sen. Klobuchar with the support of Sen. Grassley and others. This bill would give the FTC new authority to investigate settlements between branded and generic drug companies that delay generic/biosimilar market entry and are deemed anticompetitive. The bill proposes allowing the FTC to make factual findings and liability determinations that the district court applies when computing damages. Our expert panel will discuss whether this bifurcated administrative/judicial arrangement can be squared with SEC v. Jarkesy and more broadly discuss issues around patent settlements in the bio/pharma space. Featuring:Matthew S. Hellman, Partner, Jenner & BlockWilliam M. Jay, Partner, Appellate & Supreme Court Litigation, Goodwin Procter LLPProf. Emily Michiko Morris, David L. Brennan Endowed Chair, Associate Professor, and Associate Director of the Center for Intellectual Property Law & Technology, The University of Akron School of LawMatthew D. Rowen, Partner, Clement & Murphy PLLCModerator: Brian Pandya, Partner, Duane Morris LLP--To register, click the link above.

Federal regulations shape the workplace environment daily. With the Supreme Court's recent decision to overturn the Chevron doctrine, the Court's ruling in the Jarkesy decision, and the anticipated return of the Trump administration in January 2025, businesses face a dynamic regulatory landscape. These developments and ongoing challenges to federal agency authority could significantly impact employers.  Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Workplace Law and Recent Supreme Court Decisions 02:04 Impact of Loper Bright on Workplace Regulations 05:50 Ongoing Legal Challenges and Agency Authority 12:03 The Jarkesy Decision and Its Implications 18:05 Future of Administrative Agencies and Regulatory Landscape

Valerie Cohen, Partner, Venable LLP, speaks with Randy Sergent, Executive Vice President & General Counsel, CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield, and Shane Hunt, a government health care attorney, about the wide-ranging impacts of Loper Bright, Corner Post, and Jarkesy on the health care industry. They discuss the effect of Loper Bright on day-to-day company operations, judicial outcomes, and managed care; navigating regulatory ambiguity versus unfavorable regulatory interpretations; the potential for increased challenges to historic rules in light of Corner Post; and the implications of Jarkesy on health care enforcement and potential for unintended consequences. Sponsored by Venable.To learn more about AHLA and the educational resources available to the health law community, visit americanhealthlaw.org.

The Regulatory Transparency Project and the Federalism & Separation of Powers practice group hosted a virtual debate over the recent Supreme Court decision in SEC v. Jarkesy. The panel featured Matthew Wiener, from Penn Carey Law, and Josh Robbins, of the Pacific Legal Foundation. Michael Buschbacher, from Boyden & Gray PLLC, moderated the debate.

The impact of the Loper Bright and Jarkesy decisions could be widely felt including in increased immigration litigation and challenges. Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Workplace Law and Recent Supreme Court Decisions 02:51 Impact of Loper Brighton Immigration Compliance 05:46 Understanding the Jarkesy Decision and Its Implications 09:02 Case Studies: Walmart and SpaceX Decisions 11:45 Challenges to Administrative Authority and Future Litigation 15:09 The Future of Immigration Policies and Employer Leverage 18:01 Conclusion and Future Outlook on Workplace Law

With Kurt absent this week, Chris discusses current developments at the SEC with Sandra Hanna, who leads the securities enforcement practice at Steptoe. They discuss the short term impacts of Jarkesy, how 102(e) actions are evolving in real-time, the state of ESG enforcement after the disbanding of the Task Force, and what the SEC might look like in 2025.

Recent Supreme Court decisions, such as the opinions in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless v. Department of Commerce that overruled the long-standing Chevron doctrine, will likely impact how federal agencies interpret ambiguous statutes when regulating the pharmaceutical industry. And in Securities & Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, the Court established a right to a jury trial for defendants facing civil monetary penalties in agency enforcement actions, which may affect how industry stakeholders respond to enforcement actions. In addition to these cases, which are not specifically focused on the pharmaceutical industry, ongoing manufacturer challenges to the Inflation Reduction Act's negotiation provisions and to state 340B contract pharmacy laws will likely have a significant impact on the pharmaceutical industry. In this episode of Connected with Latham, Washington, D.C. partner Chris Schott and associate Danny Machado review recent and ongoing cases and explore how they could affect the pharmaceutical industry. Also tune in to the Latham webcast “The Demise of Chevron Deference and Its Impact on the Healthcare and Life Sciences Industries” for a deep dive into Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce.    This podcast is provided as a service of Latham & Watkins LLP. Listening to this podcast does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Latham & Watkins LLP, and you should not send confidential information to Latham & Watkins LLP. While we make every effort to assure that the content of this podcast is accurate, comprehensive, and current, we do not warrant or guarantee any of those things and you may not rely on this podcast as a substitute for legal research and/or consulting a qualified attorney. Listening to this podcast is not a substitute for engaging a lawyer to advise on your individual needs. Should you require legal advice on the issues covered in this podcast, please consult a qualified attorney. Under New York's Code of Professional Responsibility, portions of this communication contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each representation. Please direct all inquiries regarding the conduct of Latham and Watkins attorneys under New York's Disciplinary Rules to Latham & Watkins LLP, 1271 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10020, Phone: 1.212.906.1200

White collar ass crime... You can subscribe to 5-4 Premium on Patreon, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. 5-4 is presented by Prologue Projects. This episode was produced by Benjamin Frisch. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our researcher is Jonathan DeBruin, and our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.Follow the show at @fivefourpod on most platforms. On Twitter, find Peter @The_Law_Boy and Rhiannon @AywaRhiannon. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

After discussing SCOTUS voting blocs and public perception, in part two of our discussion Adam Feldman rounds up the 2023-2024 term. We cover:SEC v. Jarkesy, holding that 7th Amendment procedural rights apply in agency proceedings, and whether Adam is surprised at the voting alignment (conservatives pro, liberals con).Loper Bright v. Raimondo, overruling Chevron, and what to make of the liberal bloc joining the government in both these administrative state cases.CFPB v. Comm. Fin. Svcs Assn, holding that CFPB funding fits with history and tradition, and whether Adam was surprised that Justice Thomas broke with the conservative group to join.Trump v. Anderson, holding the 14th Amendment did not disqualify Trump from the ballot, and whether Adam was surprised it was 9-0.Fischer v. U.S., holding 18 USC 1512 (prohibiting congressional obstruction) does not apply to Jan. 6, and whether Adam was surprised that Justice Jackson joined, and Justice Barrett dissented.Rahimi, holding the text, history, and tradition test supports civil restraining order disarmament, and whether Adam was surprised the court even took this case, and surprised that the court only issued GVRs on companion cases, despite there being so many Rahimi concurrences. (Akhil Amar, renowned constitutional scholar and an originalist of a liberal variety, has an interesting take on Rahimi at his podcast here.)Adam Feldman biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography, LinkedIn profile, and Twitter feed.Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography, LinkedIn profile, Twitter feed, and YouTube page.Sign up for Not To Be Published, Tim Kowal's weekly legal update, or view his blog of recent cases.The California Appellate Law Podcast thanks Casetext for sponsoring the podcast. Listeners receive a discount on Casetext Basic Research at casetext.com/CALP. The co-hosts, Jeff and Tim, were also invited to try Casetext's newest technology, CoCounsel, the world's first AI legal assistant. You can discover CoCounsel for yourself with a demo and free trial at casetext.com/CoCounsel.Other items discussed in the episode:Empirical SCOTUS, https://empiricalscotus.com/Videos from this episode will be posted at Tim Kowal's YouTube channel.Legal Data Analytics | Optimized Legal Solutions (feldyfied.wixsite.com)

In this episode, co-host Felicia Ellsworth and Counsel Ryan Chabot discuss United States v. Rahimi, a recent decision that concerns the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), a statute which prohibits individuals who are subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. Key foundational support for Rahimi was established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a 2022 Supreme Court decision which enacted a test for Second Amendment challenges. The final decision in Rahimi, along with Bruen, provides the courts with a framework for determining what gun control laws are constitutional, and stands as a significant decision for ongoing Second Amendment litigation. Ellsworth and Chabot dive into the details of both Bruen and Rahimi, with Chabot explaining the historical intricacies of interpreting and litigating Second Amendment cases. He also speaks to the amicus brief he filed with Partner Alan Schoenfeld and Associate Josh Feinzig on behalf of Everytown for Gun Safety, a nonprofit that advocates for gun control and against gun violence. The organization was in support of the federal government's position that the statute at issue is constitutional and saw a sweeping victory in its favor in the Court's final ruling.This episode is the latest installment of our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. Previous episodes covering this year's term looked at the decisions in cases including Cantero v. Bank of America, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, Department of State v. Muñoz and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo.

In this episode, co-host Michael Dawson and Partner Kelly Dunbar discuss Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the recent decision that overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. In the initial 1984 decision, the Court determined that when an agency is tasked with enforcing an ambiguous statute with more than one reasonable interpretation, a court reviewing the agency's action must defer to the agency's reasonable interpretation of the statute. This latest decision requires courts to make those interpretations instead, with potentially far-reaching effects on agencies across the country. Dawson and Dunbar share the original intent of Chevron and how it came to form a bedrock of administrative law. Dunbar also explains why the Court found it necessary to overturn the decision after 40 years and the unanswered questions left in the wake of the case. Dawson also questions the impact the case will have on both the public and private sector, and specifically if Congress will shift how it legislates in order to avoid potential ambiguity. This episode is the latest installment of our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. Previous episodes covering this year's term looked at the decisions in cases including Cantero v. Bank of America, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy and Department of State v. Muñoz.

In this episode of In the Public Interest, co-host Felicia Ellsworth is joined by WilmerHale Partner Lee Greenfield to discuss the Supreme Court's recent decision in Department of State v. Muñoz. The case concerns the due process rights of US citizens if their non-citizen spouses are denied entrance to the country and what impact this has on the right to marriage. Ellsworth and Greenfield cover the origins of the case and how it evolved from a lawsuit pertaining to the Fifth Amendment rights of an individual plaintiff, Sandra Muñoz, into a larger conversation around the right to marriage as defined in cases such as Obergefell v. Hodges. Greenfield lends an added perspective from his direct involvement with the case, explaining how he came to file an amicus brief on behalf of 35 members of Congress in support of Muñoz.This episode is the latest installment of our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. Previous episodes covering this year's term looked at the decisions in cases including Cantero v. Bank of America, Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP and Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy.

This Day in Legal History: Social Security Act SignedOn August 14, 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act into law, a landmark piece of legislation that reshaped the American social welfare system. The Act established several critical programs, including unemployment insurance, pension plans for the elderly, and "Aid to Dependent Children," which later became known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Born out of the economic devastation of the Great Depression, the Social Security Act was a cornerstone of Roosevelt's New Deal, aimed at providing financial security for vulnerable populations. The signing of this Act marked the beginning of a federal commitment to ensuring a safety net for the elderly, the unemployed, and families in need. The Social Security program has since evolved into one of the most enduring and significant aspects of American public policy, continuing to play a vital role in the lives of millions.Mars Inc. has agreed to purchase Kellanova, the brand behind Pringles, Eggos and Cheez-its, for nearly $36 billion, marking the largest packaged-food industry deal in almost a decade. The acquisition price includes $83.50 per share in cash, representing a 33% premium over Kellanova's closing price before the deal talks were reported. This move comes as the food industry faces declining volumes and slowing growth, prompting companies to seek consolidation and innovation. Kellanova, which spun off its cereal business last year, has shown strong earnings and raised its full-year guidance due to successful new products and marketing efforts. The deal, expected to close in the first half of next year, will allow Mars to diversify its portfolio beyond chocolate, especially as cocoa prices have surged. The transaction will be financed through Mars' cash reserves and a $29 billion bridge loan. Antitrust concerns are expected to be minimal, given the limited overlap between the companies' products. If the deal falls through due to regulatory issues, Mars would owe Kellanova a $1.25 billion termination fee.Mars Buys Snack Maker Kellanova in $36 Billion DealA New York judge, Justice Juan Merchan, has denied Donald Trump's request for the third time to recuse himself from the case in which Trump was convicted of falsifying business records related to hush money paid to Stormy Daniels. Trump's lawyers argued that Merchan had a conflict of interest due to his daughter's work for a political consultancy linked to Democratic campaigns. However, Merchan dismissed these claims, stating they were repetitive and lacked evidence. Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts in May, with sentencing scheduled for September 18. The Manhattan District Attorney's Office labeled Trump's recusal attempts as frivolous.Trump loses third bid for judge to step aside in hush money case | ReutersThe U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is contemplating breaking up Google following a court ruling that found the company monopolized the online search market. This would be the most significant antitrust action since the unsuccessful attempt to break up Microsoft two decades ago. Among the possible remedies, the DOJ is considering divesting units like the Android operating system and the Chrome web browser, or even forcing Google to sell its AdWords platform. Another option involves requiring Google to share data with competitors like Microsoft's Bing or DuckDuckGo, to level the playing field. The DOJ's deliberations follow Judge Amit Mehta's recent ruling against Google, which found that the company used illegal agreements to secure its dominance in search and search ads. The DOJ may also push for a ban on exclusive contracts that stifle competition, which were central to the case. If pursued, the breakup would be the largest since AT&T's dismantling in the 1980s. However, Google plans to appeal the ruling, and any DOJ proposal would need court approval.DOJ Mulls Google Breakup Push After Landmark Antitrust Win (1)The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has argued that the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Jarkesy v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission does not affect its ability to address illegal labor practices. The Supreme Court ruling found that the SEC's in-house enforcement practices violated the constitutional right to a jury trial, raising questions about the powers of other agencies. However, the NLRB maintains that its role in remedying worker harm is distinct from the punitive measures by the SEC, as it focuses on compensating workers rather than imposing penalties. Macy's, which is appealing an NLRB decision related to an illegal lockout, contends that the Supreme Court's ruling applies broadly, including to claims involving illegal firings, which the company argues are similar to common law wrongful termination cases. The NLRB cited a 2022 decision in Thryv Inc., which expanded its power to order compensation for direct or foreseeable financial harms. While the 5th Circuit Court invalidated the Thryv ruling on its merits, it did not address broader issues of remedies. The 9th Circuit is now considering the impact of the Jarkesy decision on the NLRB's authority.NLRB, Macy's duel over US Supreme Court ruling's impact on agency powers | ReutersYesterday, in a piece I wrote for Forbes, I explored the economic impact of tax breaks for data centers, arguing that while these facilities are essential to the modern digital economy, they don't generate long-term job growth as some proponents suggest. Instead, data centers resemble traditional infrastructure projects, offering utility rather than sustained employment. For example, in Washington State, tax incentives meant to create jobs in rural areas have primarily benefited large corporations like Microsoft, with minimal job creation for local communities.These data centers also place significant demands on local resources, such as electricity and water, especially in areas where these resources are scarce. Given their limited role in job creation, I suggest that public subsidies should focus on the construction and development of these centers and related internet infrastructure, rather than on ongoing operational support. By investing in infrastructure that enhances connectivity and sustainability, states can ensure public funds are used responsibly and generate broader social benefits.Tax Breaks For Data Centers Bring Few Jobs This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Swiss Banks Settle with Holocaust SurvivorsOn August 12, 1998, a landmark settlement was reached when Swiss banks agreed to pay $1.25 billion to Holocaust survivors and their heirs. The settlement resolved lawsuits that accused the banks of withholding millions of dollars deposited by Holocaust victims before and during World War II. For decades, these accounts had been frozen, and the banks had been criticized for their lack of transparency and for making it difficult for survivors and their families to access the funds. The lawsuits brought to light the complex role that Swiss financial institutions played during the war, often prioritizing financial gain over moral responsibility. This settlement was seen as a significant acknowledgment of the wrongs committed and a step toward justice for the victims. The agreement also marked a broader recognition of the need to address the financial injustices faced by Holocaust survivors, setting a precedent for other restitution efforts globally. The $1.25 billion fund was distributed to survivors, heirs, and various Jewish organizations, symbolizing a long-overdue attempt to rectify the banks' wartime conduct. The settlement highlighted the intersection of financial institutions, moral responsibility, and historical accountability in the aftermath of one of history's greatest tragedies.The recent Supreme Court ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy has sent shockwaves through federal health agencies, significantly impacting their ability to impose civil penalties. The decision, which requires a jury trial for civil penalties in SEC cases, is expected to influence how agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conduct enforcement actions. Legal experts suggest that this ruling could lead to increased legal challenges from healthcare entities, such as hospitals and drugmakers, against penalties imposed by these agencies. The ruling has raised questions about the constitutionality of administrative procedures, particularly those handled by administrative law judges, and may force agencies to reassess their enforcement strategies. The decision could also slow down current enforcement actions while agencies evaluate their legal standing. This ruling is likely to embolden those facing civil penalties to challenge the HHS and its agencies in court, especially in areas like Medicare, tobacco regulation, and the 340B Drug Pricing Program.By way of very brief background, in SEC v. Jarkasy, the Fifth Circuit held that the SEC's administrative enforcement of fraud claims without jury trials violated the Seventh Amendment, as such claims involve traditional common law matters warranting a jury. The court also ruled that the Dodd-Frank Act's broad delegation of authority to the SEC to choose between administrative proceedings and federal court without clear guidelines violated the nondelegation doctrine. Additionally, the protections against removal for administrative law judges (ALJs) were found to infringe on the President's duty under Article II. The Supreme Court later upheld the Seventh Amendment violation but did not address the other issues.Health Agency Approach on Civil Penalties Shaken by High CourtIsmael "El Mayo" Zambada, a prominent Mexican drug lord and co-founder of the Sinaloa Cartel, claimed he was deceived and forcibly taken to the United States last month. In a statement released by his lawyer, Zambada alleged that he was lured into a meeting by Joaquin Guzman Lopez, the son of his former partner Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman, and state officials in Sinaloa. He recounted being ambushed, restrained, and flown to the U.S. under duress. Contrary to Zambada's account, Guzman Lopez's lawyer and U.S. authorities assert that Guzman Lopez surrendered voluntarily after negotiations. During the incident, Zambada claims that one of the officials involved, Hector Cuen, was killed, and his bodyguard has since disappeared. Both Zambada and Guzman Lopez have pleaded not guilty to drug-trafficking charges in the U.S.'El Mayo' says he was ambushed in new account of US arrest | ReutersA federal appeals court has extended an order blocking President Joe Biden's administration from implementing its student debt relief plan, which aimed to lower monthly payments and accelerate loan forgiveness for millions of borrowers. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, responding to an appeal from seven Republican-led states, granted an injunction that halts further implementation of the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) Plan. This ruling follows a previous order that temporarily blocked parts of the plan. The court's decision means that while loans already forgiven won't be reversed, future implementations are on hold. The Biden administration criticized the ruling, arguing it would increase costs for borrowers, while the Republican-led states contend that the administration exceeded its legal authority with the plan. The SAVE Plan, which had partially taken effect, was projected to benefit over 20 million borrowers but now faces legal hurdles that may delay or alter its future. This development follows earlier challenges to Biden's broader $430 billion debt cancellation initiative, which was blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023.Federal court extends block on Biden's student debt relief plan | 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

On this episode of EMBARGOED!, host Tim O'Toole is joined by Miller & Chevalier attorneys Caroline Watson and Melissa Burgess to discuss U.S. controls on investment transactions under the CFIUS program and the new reverse CFIUS program, as well as the potential impact of the Supreme Court's recent decision in SEC v. Jarkesy on enforcement by civil penalties.  Roadmap: Intro CFIUS Outbound Investment Program (reverse CFIUS) Enforcement Penalties and the impact of Jarkesy ******* Thanks to our guests for joining us: Caroline Watson: https://www.millerchevalier.com/professional/caroline-j-watson Melissa Burgess: https://www.millerchevalier.com/professional/melissa-burgess    Questions? Contact us at podcasts@milchev.com. EMBARGOED! is not intended and cannot be relied on as legal advice; the content only reflects the thoughts and opinions of its hosts. EMBARGOED! is intelligent talk about sanctions, export controls, and all things international trade for trade nerds and normal human beings alike. Each episode will feature deep thoughts and hot takes about the latest headline-grabbing developments in this area of the law, as well as some below-the-radar items to keep an eye on. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts for new episodes so you don't miss out!

Ralph welcomes Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, an American trauma surgeon who worked at the European Hospital in Khan Younis. They'll discuss Dr. Sidhwa's experience on the ground in Gaza, as well as his letter (co-signed by 45 other American medical practitioners) to President Biden, VP Harris, and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden. Then, Ralph is joined by University of Chicago Booth School of Business Professor Luigi Zingales to look at why business schools are setting capitalism up to fail.Dr. Feroze Sidhwa is a trauma and critical care surgeon as well as a Northern California Veterans Affairs general surgeon, and he is Associate Professor of Surgery at the California Northstate University College of Medicine. Dr. Sidhwa served at the European Hospital in Khan Younis in March and April of this year, and he has done prior humanitarian work in Haiti, the West Bank, Ukraine, and Zimbabwe. Dr. Sidhwa and 45 other American doctors and nurses who have served in Gaza recently sent a letter exhorting President Biden, VP Harris, and First Lady Dr. Jill Biden to effect an immediate ceasefire. Gaza is definitely unique compared to anywhere else that I've been—the level of violence, the level of displacement, the level of deprivation of normal things that society provides.Dr. Feroze SidhwaThere's so much in this letter, listeners, that you need to know about because it's such heartfelt and professionally documented close observation. This short interview cannot do justice to the horrors that Dr. Sidhwa and others observed—and they were just there for a few weeks. Ralph NaderOne of the things that we tried to emphasize in the letter is that we don't have anything to say about the politics of the Israel-Palestine conflict…We, as physicians, that's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about our own participation in a massive unprecedented assault on a civilian population. By a military that we fund—we supply, literally every day. We provide the training. We provide all the diplomatic cover. The economic support. Everything is coming from the United States. And in the end, the Israelis have already decided what they're going to do. They have decided to destroy Gaza. If half the people there die, oh well, if all of the people there die, oh well. But we don't have to be involved in it.Dr. Feroze SidhwaI think the situation in Gaza has reached such a level, the political moment in the U.S. with Biden not running again, has reached a certain level, and then with Netanyahu's bonker address to Congress—when Nancy Pelosi is openly criticizing the Prime Minister of Israel, he's really screwed up.Dr. Feroze SidhwaLuigi Zingales is the Robert C. McCormack Distinguished Service Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. He co-developed the Financial Trust Index, which is designed to monitor the level of trust that Americans have toward their financial system. He is currently a faculty research fellow for the National Bureau of Economic Research, a research fellow for the Center for Economic Policy Research, a fellow of the European Governance Institute, and the director of Chicago Booth's Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State. Professor Zingales is the co-host (with Bethany McLean) of the podcast Capitalisn't, and co-author (with Raghuram G. Rajan) of the book Saving Capitalism from Capitalists. These days, there is a lot of attention in business school about the environment, about so-called social responsibility, about all these aspects…but business schools like to keep separate the social aspects from the business aspects. So, in many places now there are classes on social entrepreneurship—which is something very interesting where people try to use their entrepreneurial skills to promote an initiative that is good for society at large, even if it's not necessarily profitable. But then if you are not a social enterprise, then you have to be the most capital, profit-maximizing firms on the face of the earth. There is nothing in between.Professor Luigi ZingalesOne year there was a management conference, and I organized a session on corporate fraud. And I expected a lot of people to show up and listen to the panel. In fact, it was a fiasco. Almost nobody showed up, because they don't want to confront their own limitations and problems. They want to see the more glitzy and shiny aspects of success. And that's what attracts them to business school, and that's what we end up selling to them. So I think that we are in part responsible because we cater too much to their own demand. Professor Luigi ZingalesIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantisNews 7/31/241. On Monday, nine Israeli soldiers were arrested on suspicion of raping a Palestinian prisoner at the Sde Teiman detention facility. In response, the Middle East Eye reports “Dozens of people…including members of parliament and Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu, gathered outside Sde Teiman and stormed the…facility…[and] Hours later, some 1,200 rioters gathered outside the Beit Lid base, where the nine suspects were taken for questioning.” This piece quotes military chief of staff Herzi Halevi who described the riots as “bordering on anarchy” and said the rioters harmed the military. Yet, “Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich described the suspects as as ‘heroic warriors'…[and] National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, who oversees the prisons where Palestinians are detained, called [the suspects] the ‘best heroes' and described the arrests as ‘shameful'.” One of these soldiers has now been released, according to the Middle East Monitor.2. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed Congress last week amid mass protests in Washington D.C. During his speech, Axios reports six spectators were arrested for “disrupting” the address. All six of these demonstrators are family members of the Israeli hostages. Capitol Police spokesperson Brianna Burch is quoted saying “demonstrating in the Congressional Buildings is against the law.”3. In the U.K., the new Labour government is sending mixed messages on their Middle East policy. Late last week, the government announced that they would drop the United Kingdom's opposition to the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant against Netanyahu, per CNN. Yet this week, Foreign Secretary David Lammy announced that despite campaign promises, “Labour will…delay recognition [of a Palestinian state] indefinitely, making it conditional on Israel feeling ‘safe and secure,'” as reported by British blog Stats for Lefties. Labour continues to face pressure from independent MPs like Jeremy Corbyn on this issue.4. This week, President Nicolas Maduro was reelected in Venezuela. Elon Musk was caught spreading misinformation implying that Maduro engaged in election fraud – sharing a video that he claimed showed ballot boxes being stolen, when in fact the ballot boxes in question were actually air conditioning units, per Mediaite. The National Lawyer's Guild International Committee however, which sent a delegation to monitor the election, “observed a transparent, fair voting process with scrupulous attention to legitimacy, access to the polls and pluralism.” The NLG statement went on to decry “Despite the soundness of the electoral process, the U.S. backed opposition, with support from an anti-Maduro western press has refused to accept the results, undermining the stability of Venezuela's democracy.”5. Forbes reports that Disney has reached a deal with the unionized workers at Disneyland, ratifying a three-year contract that includes “a $24 hourly minimum wage…wage increases, seniority increases, more flexible attendance and sick leave policies, and other benefits.” This deal thus averts the first strike at the Anaheim park in four decades. Last week, More Perfect Union reported that the 14,000 unionized Disneyland workers “authorized a strike by 99%.”6. Jacobin reports “SpaceX [has won] a First Battle in Its Assault on the NLRB.” In this piece, People's Policy Project founder Matt Bruenig lays out how “SpaceX...[winning] a preliminary injunction in a Texas federal district court against the National Labor Relations Board… moves us closer to a potential Supreme Court decision declaring the NLRB unconstitutional.” This is the latest installment in the corporatist war on administrative law, which has already scored major victories in the SEC v. Jarkesy and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo cases. Bruenig notes that “For now, the district court's decision simply prevents the NLRB from processing a fairly run-of-the-mill unfair labor practice charge against SpaceX. The real question is going to be what the Supreme Court does once this case makes it to their docket. But in the meantime…it is likely that other companies subject to NLRB proceedings will seek similar injunctions.”7. A storm is brewing within the Kamala Harris campaign over Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan. Democracy Now! Reports “some of the Democratic Party's biggest donors, including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, are openly pushing Harris to fire…Khan, who has led Biden's antitrust efforts.” NBC notes that Hoffman is a billionaire megadonor and that other megadonors like Barry Diller are also calling for Khan's removal, and adds that “Khan's pro-consumer, pro-worker, anti-monopoly agenda has attracted no small amount of hate from powerful and monied interests.” On the other side, Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren and the Service Employees International Union – a close labor ally of Harris – have defended Khan. This battle illustrates the cross-cutting interests Harris will have to navigate as the Democratic nominee, and possibly, as president. We urge the Vice President to back Khan, not the billionaire donor class.8. The Washington Post is out with a heartbreaking new report on the increase of homelessness among “Working Americans with decent-paying jobs who simply can't afford a place to live.” This report cites data showing that homelessness, already at record highs, is only getting worse – growing by 61% in Southeast Texas over the past year, 35% in Rhode Island, and 20% in northeast Tennessee. Throughout the country, rents have risen by over 32% in four years and overall homelessness by 12%.9. In another disturbing economic trend, a new academic working paper out of UCLA and USC analyzes how the “widespread legalization of sports gambling over the past five years has impacted consumer financial health.” The most-discussed findings of this paper have to do with debt, with a “roughly 28% increase in bankruptcies and an 8% increase in debt transferred to debt collectors,” along with substantial increases in auto loan delinquencies and use of debt consolidation loans. As the researchers put it “these results indicate that the ease of access to sports gambling is harming consumer financial health by increasing their level of debt.”10. Finally, for some good news, the White House issued a statement Monday celebrating that “As of today, over 600,000 Teamster workers and retirees have pensions protected from devastating cuts,” as part of Biden's signature American Rescue Plan. This announcement came after the administration acted to protect 70,000 worker pensions in New England, building on similar actions in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. As the Boston Globe explains “The [American Rescue Plan] set up a special financial assistance program that allows struggling multi-employer pension plans to apply for assistance from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a federal agency that protects the retirement incomes of workers in defined benefit pension plans.” The administration is paying particular attention to the protection of Teamsters, as that union's leadership has been flirting with an embrace of the GOP. Not one Republican voted for the American Rescue Plan.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

In this episode, co-host Michael Dawson is joined by Noah Rosenblum, an assistant professor of law at NYU and former WilmerHale summer associate, to discuss the Supreme Court's decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The case concerns whether the SEC has the authority to seek civil penalties against an individual before an administrative law judge rather than before an Article III-appointed judge and a jury of the individual's peers. As a result of the Court's decision, the SEC may no longer rely on its administrative forum to seek civil penalties for alleged violations of securities laws. Dawson and Rosenblum give a timeline of events that led up to the Supreme Court case, with Rosenblum breaking down how the majority and dissenting opinions diverge. Leveraging his background as a legal historian, Rosenblum provides historical context and explains how applying a traditional Constitutional interpretation to the case increases its complexity. Dawson and Rosenblum also discuss the long-term impact this case could have, highlighting how the final ruling leaves many unanswered questions that could pose challenges in interpreting future decisions. This episode is the latest installment of our miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the US Supreme Court. Previous episodes covering this year's term looked at the decisions in Cantero v. Bank of America and Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP.

Aughie and Nia review the following cases: Snyder v. U.S.; Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy; Idaho v. U.S.; Harrington v. Purdue Pharma

John is joined by Christopher G. Michel, Partner in Quinn Emanuel's Washington, D.C. office and John Bash, Partner in Quinn Emanuel's Austin Office, the two Co-Chairs of the firm's National Appellate Practice.  They discuss several far-reaching decisions handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court at the end of its most recent term that significantly affect how the federal government will be able to regulate businesses.  First, John Bash explains the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, in which the Court over-turned the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine, which required courts to defer to the interpretation of ambiguous statutes adopted by the administrative agencies that implement those statutes.  He also explains the decision in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors, in which the Court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations for a plaintiff to challenge federal regulations runs from when the regulation first affects the plaintiff, not from when the regulation is promulgated.  They then discuss how Corner Post and Loper Bright together will potentially allow businesses to overturn agency interpretations of statutes that were established decades ago.  Chris explains the decision in SEC v. Jarkesy that when an agency brings a case that would typically require a jury at common law, the defendant is entitled to a jury trial in a federal court rather than a trial before one of the agency's administrative law judges.  Chris also explains the Court's decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., which held that a bankruptcy court may not grant a release of claims against non-parties to a bankruptcy unless the alleged victims consent to the release, and how the decision will affect large bankruptcy proceedings going forward.  They then discuss Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, in which the Court expressed skepticism about state laws in Texas and Florida that prohibited social media companies from engaging in certain forms of content moderation, but remanded the case for further proceedings.  Finally, they discuss Macquarie Infrastructure Corp. v. Moab Partners, in which the Court ruled that “pure omissions” are not actionable under SEC Rule 10b-5 and a Rule 10b-5 claim must always be based on a statement that is either false or misleading on its own or rendered misleading by a material omission.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

On this episode of the inSecurities podcast, Chris and Kurt discuss recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that will have profound impacts for the SEC and other agencies. First, our co-hosts discuss the Jarkesy case, which held that defendants in SEC enforcement proceedings have a Constitutional right to have fraud cases heard by a jury. Next, Chris and Kurt discuss Loper Bright, which overrules the decades-old Chevron doctrine, ending the presumption that courts must rely on agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes.

Host Gregg N. Sofer welcomes back to the podcast Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law at New York University Law School, and Steve Renau, Husch Blackwell's Head of Thought Leadership, to discuss the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy. The Court held 6-3 that the Seventh Amendment's guarantee of a jury trial requires the SEC to pursue civil penalties for securities-fraud violations in federal court. No longer can the SEC rely on its own in-house tribunal to secure these penalties. Although Jarkesy applies only to the SEC, the Court's reasoning could have far-reaching implications across a number of federal agencies, particularly when “the ‘public rights' exception to Article III jurisdiction does not apply.”Our discussion highlights the administrative law history that was brought to bear upon the case and how it was that the adjudication of civil penalties came to be matters before non-Article III courts. We then pivot to some of the impacts Jarkesy could have in the future, including whether the Supreme Court will take up related issues of due process in future challenges to federal agency enforcement actions.Finally, we discuss Jarkesy in light of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright decision that ended the doctrine of Chevron deference and the implications of both decisions for administrative agencies and the private businesses they regulate.Gregg N. Sofer BiographyFull BiographyGregg counsels businesses and individuals in connection with a range of criminal, civil and regulatory matters, including government investigations, internal investigations, litigation, export control, sanctions, and regulatory compliance. Prior to entering private practice, Gregg served as the United States Attorney for the Western District of Texas—one of the largest and busiest United States Attorney's Offices in the country—where he supervised more than 300 employees handling a diverse caseload, including matters involving complex white-collar crime, government contract fraud, national security, cyber-crimes, public corruption, money laundering, export violations, trade secrets, tax, large-scale drug and human trafficking, immigration, child exploitation and violent crime.Richard Epstein BiographyRichard A. Epstein is the Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, New York University Law School, a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, and the Peter and Kirsten Bedford Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution.Professor Epstein has published work on a broad range of constitutional, economic, historical, and philosophical subjects. He has taught administrative law, antitrust law, communications law, constitutional law, corporation criminal law, employment discrimination law, environmental law, food and drug law, health law, labor law, Roman law, real estate development and finance, and individual and corporate taxation.Epstein's most recent book publication is The Dubious Morality of Modern Administrative Law (2020). Other works include The Classical Liberal Constitution: The Uncertain Quest for Limited Government (2014); Design for Liberty: Private Property, Public Administration, and the Rule of Law (2011); The Case against the Employee Free Choice Act (2009); Supreme Neglect: How to Revive the Constitutional Protection for Private Property (2008); How the Progressives Rewrote the Constitution (2006); Overdose (2006); and Free Markets under Siege: Cartels, Politics, and Social Welfare (2005).He received a BA degree in philosophy summa cum laude from Columbia in 1964; a BA degree in law with first-class honors from Oxford University in 1966; and an LLB degree cum laude, from the Yale Law School in 1968. Upon graduation he joined the faculty at the University of Southern California, where he taught until 1972. In 1972, he visited the University of Chicago and became a regular member of the faculty the following year.He has been a senior fellow at the MacLean Center for Clinical Medical Ethics since 1984 and was elected a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1985. In 2011, Epstein was a recipient of the Bradley Prize for outstanding achievement. In 2005, the College of William & Mary School of Law awarded him the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize.Additional ResourcesThe Justice Insiders, “The Administrative State Is Not Your Friend: A Conversation with Professor Richard Epstein” (Episode 7), June 21, 2022The Justice Insiders, “SEC Plays Chicken with Jarkesy” (Episode 18), October 16, 2023U.S. Supreme Court, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy, June 27, 2024Gregg N. Sofer and Joseph S. Diedrich, “Landmark Supreme Court Decisions Restrain Federal Administrative Agency Power,” June 28, 2024© 2024 Husch Blackwell LLP. All rights reserved. This information is intended only to provide general information in summary form on legal and business topics of the day. The contents hereof do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied on as such. Specific legal advice should be sought in particular matters.

On back-to-back days in late June, the US Supreme Court issued two decisions that reasserted judicial primacy in statutory interpretation and dealt a blow to executive authority. The cases were SEC vs Jarkesy and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, and together they demonstrate a Supreme Court deeply skeptical of the administrative state and of an executive branch usurping powers that belong to the judiciary. Key Points From This Episode:Summary of the Jarkesy and Loper Bright holdings.A brief history of the U.S. Constitution and Administrative Procedures Act.What do these cases mean for fund managers and the crypto industry?What do they mean for the SEC?Disclaimer:This show is for informational purposes only. Nothing presented here constitutes legal advice. Tokens of Wisdom is produced by Dave Rothschild, partner at Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP headquartered in San Francisco, California. For more information, visit https://colefrieman.com/Links Mentioned in Today's Episode:Dave Rothschild - https://www.linkedin.com/in/davidcrothschild/Cole-Frieman & Mallon LLP - https://colefrieman.com/Music by Joe Ginsberg - https://www.instagram.com/thejoeginsbergFor any questions or comments, email: tow@colefrieman.com

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions were presented in this case – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions […]

On June 27, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued their opinion in SEC v. Jarkesy. The following three questions were presented in this case – (1) Whether statutory provisions that empower the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to initiate and adjudicate administrative enforcement proceedings seeking civil penalties violate the Seventh Amendment; (2) Whether statutory provisions that authorize the SEC to choose to enforce the securities laws through an agency adjudication instead of filing a district court action violate the nondelegation doctrine; (3) Whether Congress violated Article II by granting for-cause removal protection to administrative law judges in agencies whose heads enjoy for-cause removal protection.The Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that when the Securities and Exchange Commission seeks civil penalties against a defendant for securities fraud, the Seventh Amendment entitles the defendant to a jury trial.Please join us in discussing the decision and its future implications.Featuring:Devin Watkins, Attorney, Competitive Enterprise Institute---To register, click the link above.

In a big week for administrative law watchers, the Supreme Court issued a pair of 6-3 decisions paring back the powers of administrative agencies. In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., and in Jarkesy v. S.E.C. it held that the Seventh Amendment prohibits agencies from seeking civil penalties for suits resembling actions at common law before administrative tribunals. Taken together, these cases demonstrate the Court's focus on separation of powers. Below, we consider their potential impact on the Federal Trade Commission. Kate White kwhite@kelleydrye.com (202) 342-8855 https://www.kelleydrye.com/people/katherine-white Hosted by Simone Roach Subscribe to the Ad Law Access blog - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe Subscribe to the Ad Law News Newsletter - www.kelleydrye.com/subscribe View the Advertising and Privacy Law Resource Center - www.kelleydrye.com/advertising-and-privacy-law Find all of our links here linktr.ee/KelleyDryeAdLaw

This week on Cyber Matters, host Tanner Wilburn and guests Katherine Kennelly and Zach Smith cover a wide range of cybersecurity, privacy, and technology law topics. They begin with a discussion of AT&T's massive data breach disclosure, highlighting the company's use of SEC guidance on cybersecurity incident reporting and the involvement of the Department of Justice in delaying public disclosure. The hosts then explore the ongoing fallout from the MOVEit breach one year later, using it as a case study to anticipate potential consequences for Snowflake's recent data breach. They discuss the legal and financial implications for Progress Software, the company behind MOVEit. CISA Director Jen Easterly's recent comments on ransomware payments are examined, along with the broader debate on whether to ban such payments. The hosts also delve into CISA's proposed Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act regulations and industry reactions. In regulatory news, they cover the 6th Circuit's stay on the FCC's net neutrality rules and provide historical context for the ongoing debate over internet regulation. The podcast touches on several Big Tech stories, including OpenAI's "Strawberry" project, Microsoft's board seat changes at OpenAI, and Apple's antitrust maneuvers in the EU. The hosts discuss Meta's relaxation of restrictions on former President Trump's social media accounts and the potential implications of the Supreme Court's SEC v. Jarkesy decision on Meta's dispute with the FTC. They also cover the official publication of the EU AI Act and its significance for businesses operating in Europe. National security topics include expanded U.S. Treasury reviews of foreign real estate purchases near military bases, Microsoft's potential investment in UAE's G42 AI firm, and updates on TikTok-related legislation. The hosts also discuss a new software supply chain security bill and Germany's decision to phase out Huawei and ZTE components in 5G infrastructure. The episode concludes with updates on Pennsylvania's amended data breach notification law and a local ransomware attack affecting Monroe County, Indiana.  LinkedIn Page:  https://www.linkedin.com/company/cyber-matters-podcast Ransomware Resources:  https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/ofac-the-ransomware-gangs#:~:text=In%20a%20nutshell%2C%20OFAC%20can,in%20other%20words%2C%20ransomware%20gangs. https://securityandtechnology.org/virtual-library/memo/roadmap-to-potential-prohibition-of-ransomware-payments/  

Jesse is on vacation until August, so this is a special, Rob-only summer episode of Shift Key.Over the past few weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court has profoundly changed how the federal government does its day-to-day work. In a series of landmark rulings, the high court sharply curtailed the ability of government agencies — including the Environmental Protection Agency — to write and enforce rules and regulations.That will change how the federal government oversees the products we buy, the air we breathe, and the water we drink. But it could also alter how the government regulates heat-trapping greenhouse gas pollution.But how, exactly, will these new rulings affect climate law? And is there an upside to the deregulatory revolution? This week, Rob holds a roundtable with two environmental law experts about what the high court's rulings mean for America's decarbonization project — and whether the court just inadvertently made the country's already burdensome permitting process even worse. They are Jody Freeman, a Harvard law professor and former Obama administration lawyer, and Nicholas Bagley, a University of Michigan law professor.This episode of Shift Key is hosted by Robinson Meyer, the founding executive editor of Heatmap.Mentioned: This year's four big decisions: Loper Bright, Corner Post, Jarkesy, Ohio v. EPAThe Supreme Court Is Slowly Breaking the EPAHow the Supreme Court Just Changed Climate Law, According to 9 LawyersThe Big Winners of This Supreme Court Term, by Nicholas Bagley Other important cases to know: • Massachusetts v. EPA established that the agency could regulate greenhouse gas pollution• West Virginia v. EPA codified “the major questions doctrine”--This episode of Shift Key is sponsored by …Watershed's climate data engine helps companies measure and reduce their emissions, turning the data they already have into an audit-ready carbon footprint backed by the latest climate science. Get the sustainability data you need in weeks, not months. Learn more at watershed.com.As a global leader in PV and ESS solutions, Sungrow invests heavily in research and development, constantly pushing the boundaries of solar and battery inverter technology. Discover why Sungrow is the essential component of the clean energy transition by visiting sungrowpower.com.Music for Shift Key is by Adam Kromelow. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The Supreme Court's Jarkesy decision will mean more cases brought federal agencies will end up in court instead of the court-like rooms inside the agencies themselves. Will Yeatman of the Pacific Legal Foundation and Cato's Jennifer Schulp explain the importance of the change. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In an exhausting week, the Court released a number of long-awaited cases, and we had a consequential presidential debate. We look at several cases that many believe have profound implications for the administrative state; the opinions in SEC v. Jarkesy, and Loper Bright v. Raimondo clearly have the effect of increasing the role of courts and juries, among other things. We look at the opinions, the underlying themes, and the impact.  Meanwhile, following the debate, questions of presidential succession of several types, and of the vice president, are everywhere; these happen to be areas of Prof. Amar's expertise, and so we address them. NOTE: The Presidential Immunity case, Trump v. US, came down after we taped this episode; we have some early but important resources for you on this as well.  CLE credit is available from podcast.njsba.com.

We break down SEC v. Jarkesy and City of Grants Pass v. Johnson.

#SCOTUS: SEC vs Jarkesy vs the Administrative State. Richard Epstein, Hoover Institution. https://www.wsj.com/articles/sec-v-jarkesy-supreme-court-trial-by-jury-john-roberts-neil-gorsuch-5b717e71?mod=editorials_article_pos5 SCOTUS 1923

We're not talking about Trump and Biden, but we are discussing something that could make double-hater voters less worried about the future of presidents and executive power: the final stake through the Chevron doctrine. The Agenda: —Chevron is overruled —Jarkesy decision —How "old think" plays out in the two above decisions —Sarah's offended by Sotomayor —The non-Trump January 6 case —Are homeless people being targeted by SCOTUS? No Show Notes: —Nick Kristof's piece for the Times —Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency —Moyle v. United States Advisory Opinions is a production of The Dispatch, a digital media company covering politics, policy, and culture from a non-partisan, conservative perspective. To access all of The Dispatch's offerings—including Sarah's Collision newsletter, weekly livestreams, and other members-only content—click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode, we check in with the Supreme Court that still has six cases left to decide, including the key decision on Presidential immunity. We break down Moyle v. US, in which the Supreme Court punted (for now) on the seemingly straightforward question of whether state abortion laws can supersede the federal EMTALA law protecting women in emergency rooms. Then, we discuss SEC v. Jarkesy, in which the Roberts Court continues to gut the administrative state, this time by restricting how the Securities and Exchange Commission can go after securities fraud. And in between, we update you on all things Aileen Cannon, who's even worse than you imagined.    Links: Moyle v. US https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-726_6jgm.pdf Trump Motion to Dismiss for AC Privilege (Doc. 566) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.566.0.pdf Cannon Ruling (Doc. 655) https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.655.0_1.pdf SEC v. Jarkesy https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859_1924.pdf SEC Rule 10b-5 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/17/240.10b-5   Show Links: https://www.lawandchaospod.com/ BlueSky: @LawAndChaosPod Threads: @LawAndChaosPod Twitter: @LawAndChaosPod Patreon: patreon.com/LawAndChaosPod  

What's this? A bonus Opinionpalooza episode for one and all? That's right! The hits just keep coming from SCOTUS this week, and two big decisions landed Thursday that might easily get lost in the mix: Ohio v EPA and SEC v Jarkesy. Both cases shine a light on the conservative legal movement (and their billionaire funders') long game against administrative agencies. In Ohio v EPA, the Court struck down the EPA's Good Neighbor Rule, making it harder for the agency to regulate interstate ozone pollution. This decision split along ideological lines, and is part of a stealthy dismantling of the administrative state. SEC v Jarkesy severely hinders the agency's ability to enforce actions against securities fraud without federal court involvement, and the decision will affect many other agencies. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out how this power grab by the court disrupts Congress's ability to delegate authority effectively. Project 2025 just got a jump start at SCOTUS, and we have two more big administrative cases yet to come, the so-called Chevron cases: Loper Bright v Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce. This is shaping up to be a good term for billionaires and a court apparently hungry to expand its power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's own Mark Joseph Stern (of course) and they are saved from any regulatory confusion by environmental and administrative law all-star, Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, who served in the EPA under President Obama.  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to the Securities and Exchange Commission today when it ruled against its use of in-house judges to enforce securities fraud laws. We’ll get into why the decision will make the SEC’s job harder and what it could mean for other federal agencies. Plus, we’ll bust a common myth about Social Security and explain why homeownership is key factor in how Americans are faring in this economy. Here’s everything we talked about today: “US Supreme Court faults SEC’s use of in-house judges in latest curbs on agency powers” from Reuters “The Supreme Court's chaotic SEC v. Jarkesy decision endangers ‘hundreds of statutes'” from Vox “Social Security cuts are inevitable by 2035 unless lawmakers act” from Marketplace “How the Inflation Reduction Act could change the future of one Native American reservation” from Marketplace “Credit card delinquencies are climbing” from Marketplace “Are we living in a K-shaped economy?” from Marketplace We love to hear from you. Send your questions and comments to makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to the Securities and Exchange Commission today when it ruled against its use of in-house judges to enforce securities fraud laws. We’ll get into why the decision will make the SEC’s job harder and what it could mean for other federal agencies. Plus, we’ll bust a common myth about Social Security and explain why homeownership is key factor in how Americans are faring in this economy. Here’s everything we talked about today: “US Supreme Court faults SEC’s use of in-house judges in latest curbs on agency powers” from Reuters “The Supreme Court's chaotic SEC v. Jarkesy decision endangers ‘hundreds of statutes'” from Vox “Social Security cuts are inevitable by 2035 unless lawmakers act” from Marketplace “How the Inflation Reduction Act could change the future of one Native American reservation” from Marketplace “Credit card delinquencies are climbing” from Marketplace “Are we living in a K-shaped economy?” from Marketplace We love to hear from you. Send your questions and comments to makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

What's this? A bonus Opinionpalooza episode for one and all? That's right! The hits just keep coming from SCOTUS this week, and two big decisions landed Thursday that might easily get lost in the mix: Ohio v EPA and SEC v Jarkesy. Both cases shine a light on the conservative legal movement (and their billionaire funders') long game against administrative agencies. In Ohio v EPA, the Court struck down the EPA's Good Neighbor Rule, making it harder for the agency to regulate interstate ozone pollution. This decision split along ideological lines, and is part of a stealthy dismantling of the administrative state. SEC v Jarkesy severely hinders the agency's ability to enforce actions against securities fraud without federal court involvement, and the decision will affect many other agencies. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out how this power grab by the court disrupts Congress's ability to delegate authority effectively. Project 2025 just got a jump start at SCOTUS, and we have two more big administrative cases yet to come, the so-called Chevron cases: Loper Bright v Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce. This is shaping up to be a good term for billionaires and a court apparently hungry to expand its power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's own Mark Joseph Stern (of course) and they are saved from any regulatory confusion by environmental and administrative law all-star, Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, who served in the EPA under President Obama.  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Justices rule 6-3 in SEC v. Jarkesy that it violates the Constitution's right to a trial by jury for the securities agency to try fraud cases in internal proceedings. Plus, as Joe Biden and Donald Trump prepare to meet on the debate stage for the first time in 2024, what does each candidate need to accomplish, and will it matter that CNN is muting the microphones to stop crosstalk? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

1. Supreme Court Releases Four New Big Decisions:Ohio vs. EPA (2:53)Harrington vs. Purdue Pharma (6:09)SEC vs. Jarkesy (12:21)Moyle vs. Idaho (13:28)2. Quick Hitters: Walgreens to Close "Significant" Number of Stores, Average 30-Year Mortgage Rates Drop Slightly, Oklahoma Carries Out Death Row Execution, Oklahoma Superintendent Says Bible Must Be Taught in Schools, and Three Presidential Candidates Gear Up for Tonight's Debates (18:33)SHOP THE LIMITED-EDITION 'UNBIASED' HAT NOW: SHOP HERE.Support ‘UNBIASED' on Patreon.Watch this episode on YouTube.Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok.All sources for this episode can be found here. 

The U.S. Supreme Court dealt a huge blow to the Securities and Exchange Commission today when it ruled against its use of in-house judges to enforce securities fraud laws. We’ll get into why the decision will make the SEC’s job harder and what it could mean for other federal agencies. Plus, we’ll bust a common myth about Social Security and explain why homeownership is key factor in how Americans are faring in this economy. Here’s everything we talked about today: “US Supreme Court faults SEC’s use of in-house judges in latest curbs on agency powers” from Reuters “The Supreme Court's chaotic SEC v. Jarkesy decision endangers ‘hundreds of statutes'” from Vox “Social Security cuts are inevitable by 2035 unless lawmakers act” from Marketplace “How the Inflation Reduction Act could change the future of one Native American reservation” from Marketplace “Credit card delinquencies are climbing” from Marketplace “Are we living in a K-shaped economy?” from Marketplace We love to hear from you. Send your questions and comments to makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

What's this? A bonus Opinionpalooza episode for one and all? That's right! The hits just keep coming from SCOTUS this week, and two big decisions landed Thursday that might easily get lost in the mix: Ohio v EPA and SEC v Jarkesy. Both cases shine a light on the conservative legal movement (and their billionaire funders') long game against administrative agencies. In Ohio v EPA, the Court struck down the EPA's Good Neighbor Rule, making it harder for the agency to regulate interstate ozone pollution. This decision split along ideological lines, and is part of a stealthy dismantling of the administrative state. SEC v Jarkesy severely hinders the agency's ability to enforce actions against securities fraud without federal court involvement, and the decision will affect many other agencies. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out how this power grab by the court disrupts Congress's ability to delegate authority effectively. Project 2025 just got a jump start at SCOTUS, and we have two more big administrative cases yet to come, the so-called Chevron cases: Loper Bright v Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v Department of Commerce. This is shaping up to be a good term for billionaires and a court apparently hungry to expand its power. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Slate's own Mark Joseph Stern (of course) and they are saved from any regulatory confusion by environmental and administrative law all-star, Lisa Heinzerling, the Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., Professor of Law at the Georgetown University Law Center, who served in the EPA under President Obama.  This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate's coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court this June. We kicked things off this year by explaining How Originalism Ate the Law. The best way to support our work is by joining Slate Plus. (If you are already a member, consider a donation or merch!) Want more Amicus? Subscribe to Slate Plus to immediately unlock exclusive SCOTUS analysis and weekly extended episodes. Plus, you'll access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/amicusplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In today's episode:SCOTUS sides with Jarkesy, ruling that the SEC and other government agencies' in-house courts are unconstitutionalThe House GOP tells the courts that the J6 Primetime Extravaganza was legitimately illegitimateThe coup in Bolivia is so ridiculous and confusing that even globalist think-tanks are calling it a false flagPerhaps it has something to do with Bolivia's relationship to Russia, movement toward BRICS, and an end to ties with Israel and control of the global Regime.Connect with Be Reasonable: https://linktr.ee/imyourmoderatorHear the show when it's released. Become a paid subscriber at imyourmoderator.substack.comVisit the show's sponsors:Diversify your assets into Bitcoin: https://partner.river.com/reasonableDiversify your assets into precious metals: reasonablegold.comOther ways to support the work:ko-fi.com/imyourmoderatorDonate btc via coinbase: 3MEh9J5sRvMfkWd4EWczrFr1iP3DBMcKk5Make life more comfortable: mypillow.com/reasonableMerch site: https://cancelcouture.myspreadshop.com/Follow the podcast info stream: t.me/veryreasonableOther social platforms: Truth Social, Gab, Rumble, or Gettr - @imyourmoderator Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/be-reasonable-with-your-moderator-chris-paul. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

6/27/24 Hour 2    Vince speaks with Michael McColloch, Attorney representing George Jarksey, about today's SCOTUS ruling in SEC v. Jarkesy which decided on a 6-3 party line that when the SEC seeks civil penalties against a defendant, the defendant has a right to a jury trial, not just a trial before an SEC administrative judge. Vince speaks with Caroline Sunshine, rump Campaign Deputy Communications Director about tonight's debate.        For more coverage on the issues that matter to you visit www.WMAL.com, download the WMAL app or tune in live on WMAL-FM 105.9 from 3-6pm.   To join the conversation, check us out on social media: @WMAL @VinceCoglianese.      Executive Producer: Corey Inganamort @TheBirdWords See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this special episode of the CAFE Insider podcast, Joyce Vance interviews Rachel Barkow, while Preet is out. Barkow, who recently became a CAFE contributor, is a professor at NYU Law School and author of Prisoners of Politics: Breaking the Cycle of Mass Incarceration. She also served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission from 2013 to 2019. In this excerpt from the show, Barkow discusses the high stakes of the forthcoming oral arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a case that asks the Supreme Court justices to overturn the long-standing Chevron doctrine that says courts should defer to federal agencies' interpretation of ambiguous laws. In the full episode, Barkow further discusses other consequential administrative law cases before the Supreme Court:  – CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association of America, which could invalidate the funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and – SEC v. Jarkesy, which asks whether SEC enforcement actions are consistent with the 7th Amendment's right to a jury trial. Preet will be back next week. Stay informed. For analysis of the most important legal and political issues of our time, become a member of CAFE Insider: www.cafe.com/insider. You'll get access to full episodes of the podcast, and other exclusive content. This podcast is brought to you by CAFE Studios and Vox Media Podcast Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices