2025 Outlook: The Department of Health and Human Services Under the Second Trump Administration – Diagnosing Health Care
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Impact of the Election on the CFPB: What to Expect on Key Regulatory Issues During Trump 2.0
Hospice Insights Podcast - What a Difference No Deference Makes: Courts No Longer Bow to Administrative Agencies
False Claims Act Insights - How a Marine Fisheries Dispute Opened an FCA Can of Worms
The Loper Bright Decision - What Really Happened to Chevron and What's Next
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 210: Impacts of the Chevron Doctrine Ruling with Mark Moore and Michael Parente of Maynard Nexsen
Podcast - Legislative Implications of Loper Bright and Corner Post Decisions
Podcast — Drug Pricing: How the Demise of Chevron Deference and Other Litigation May Impact the Pharmaceutical Industry
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part I
In That Case: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Regulatory Uncertainty: Benefits-Related Legal Challenges in a Post-Chevron World — Troutman Pepper Podcast
The End of Chevron Deference: Implications of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright Decision — The Consumer Finance Podcast
#WorkforceWednesday: Can FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Survive Without Chevron Deference? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday® - Chevron Deference Overturned - Employment Law This Week®
DE Under 3: Retirement of “Chevron Doctrine” Exposed Vulnerability of OFCCP’s Overreaching Interpretations of Some of its Rules
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 5: What the End of Agency Deference Means for the Healthcare Industry
#WorkforceWednesday® - Key SCOTUS Decisions This Term for Employers - Employment Law This Week®
Litigants in Puerto Rico now have an easier path to challenge administrative agencies’ determinations after the Puerto Rico Supreme Court (PRSC) ruled in Vázquez v. Consejo de Titulares, 2025 TSPR 56, that courts shall not...more
The Puerto Rico Supreme Court has issued a landmark decision limiting the deference that Puerto Rico courts owe to administrative agencies’ legal conclusions. The ruling recalibrates the balance of power between courts and...more
In the first major National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) case to reach the Supreme Court in almost two decades, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision on May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v....more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court held that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) — which requires federal agencies to analyze the environmental impacts of projects that they carry out, fund, or approve — does not...more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its Opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado et al., one of the most high-profile National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, cases to reach...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (together, the “Services”) proposed to rescind their longstanding regulatory definition of “harm”, which has for decades served...more
On May 29, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued an 8-0 opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition, et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. that affirmed agency deference in review of environmental documents...more
Changes in federal and many states’ laws (e.g., just last month in Arizona) may put industry on more equal footing with agencies when interpreting rules and permit terms. If agencies have overreached on these interpretations,...more
Ponder the following existential question: Who does their job less effectively? Members of Congress, or employees of federal agencies? Let’s examine the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) employees versus those...more
The distinctions and relationships between the three branches of government—legislative, judicial, and administrative—are not static, but ever-changing, both at the federal and state levels. The separation of powers required...more
On April 9, 2025, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum (the order) directing the heads of all Federal agencies to identify unlawful or potentially unlawful regulations that clearly exceed the agency’s statutory...more
The Trump administration changes course on regulatory interpretations relating to the scope of protections for endangered and threatened species and migratory birds. ...more
More than 50 years ago, the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA or Act) was enacted by Congress to protect the quality of the Nation’s waters. The scope of that protection has been evolving ever since. Until relatively recently, the...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) proposed a rule to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The proposed rule...more
On April 17, 2025, the Departments of Interior and Commerce issued a proposed rule to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which, if finalized, would fundamentally alter a...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) (collectively the “Services”) published a notice in the Federal Register of a proposed rulemaking that would...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to rescind their respective...more
Earlier this week, my colleagues Adam Kahn and Kevin Chen posted about the proposed rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service that would rescind the definition of “harm” under the...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a proposed rule to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This...more
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) propose rescinding the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that currently includes habitat modification,...more
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, “Service”) is proposing to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) regulations...more
On April 17, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together Services) published a proposed rule to rescind the long-standing definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species...more
On April 17, 2025, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act...more
Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together, the Services) proposed rescinding the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Harming a listed...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, Services) published a notice in the Federal Register proposing to rescind the Services’ respective...more