#WorkforceWednesday®: After the Block - What’s Next for Employers and Non-Competes? - Spilling Secrets Podcast - Employment Law This Week®
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part I
The End of Chevron Deference: Implications of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright Decision — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Supreme Court Hears Two Cases in Which the Plaintiffs Seek to Overturn the Chevron Judicial Deference Framework: Who Will Win and What Does It Mean? Part II
The Future of Chevron Deference - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Hooper, Kearney and Macklin on Cutting Edge Topics in the False Claims Act
Part Two: The MFN Drug Pricing Rule and the Rebate Rule: Where Do We Go From Here?
Part One: Two new Medicare Drug Pricing Rules in One Day: What are the MFN and the Rebate Drug Pricing Rules?
Employment Law Now IV-78- BREAKING: US DOL Issues New Regulations After Federal Court Invalidated Old Regulations
Podcast - Developments in FDA & DOJ Regulation and Enforcement of Manufacturer Communications
Podcast - Chamber of Commerce v. Internal Revenue Service
In my post of April 2, Divided Supreme Court Restricts Provider Challenges to State Medicaid Rates, I wrote about the March 31st Supreme Court decision that providers may not sue in federal court over the adequacy of state...more
In March, the Supreme Court upheld an agency’s reversal of its own regulatory interpretation without requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking. Regulated entities now face considerable uncertainty in relying on agencies’...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n invalidated a significant line of D.C. Circuit case law known, after the leading case, as the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine. A case involving a series...more
In a decision published on March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court ended the D.C. Circuit Court’s Paralyzed Veterans doctrine, which required administrative agencies to utilize the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA)...more
On March 9, 2015, Justice Sotomayor, writing on behalf of the majority, overturned the Paralyzed Veterans doctrine, which requires federal agencies to use a notice-and-comment process before making a significant revision to...more
When federal agencies change their interpretive rules, they are exempt from the formal notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA), says the Supreme Court in its recent ruling in...more
Federal agencies now have the authority to interpret their own rules. On March 9, 2015, in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, No. 13-1041, slip op. (U.S. Mar. 9, 2015), the United States Supreme Court effectively gave...more
In a March 9, 2015, decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that an interpretative rule issued by an administrative agency does not require notice and opportunity for comment,...more
In 2004, the DOL revamped its regulations regarding the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) administrative exemption. In 2006, the Bush DOL issued an opinion letter finding that mortgage loan officers qualified for the...more
The legal ping-pong match between the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) over whether mortgage loan officers are eligible for overtime appears to be at an end. The Supreme Court recently...more
In a unanimous decision on Monday, March 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court gave the Department of Labor (DOL) broad discretion to revise interpretive guidance with little notice. ...more
On March 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in two consolidated cases that a federal agency does not have to go through the formal rulemaking process, which includes providing public notice and an...more
On March 9, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, that the Department of Labor (DOL) may issue its interpretations of wage and hour regulations without seeking input from the...more
On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that when a federal administrative agency wants to amend or repeal an “interpretive rule,” it does not have to follow the notice-and-comment procedures set forth in the...more
On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court wiped away a longstanding judicial doctrine that had placed greater procedural requirements on a federal agency when it changes its prior interpretation of a federal regulation....more
On March 9, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal agency is not required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking when it issues an interpretation of a regulation that is significantly different from its prior...more
In a case we labeled one of the “cases to watch” this term, a relatively unified Supreme Court decided in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association that a federal agency does not need to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking...more
The U.S. Supreme Court handed the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) a victory in a battle over whether the agency's reversal of its stance on the exempt status of mortgage loan officers was subject to public notice and comment....more
On March 9, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, No. 13-1041 (Mar. 9, 2015), holding federal administrative agencies may amend or repeal interpretive rules without following...more
On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court held that agencies such as the Department of Labor (DOL) are not required to provide a public notice-and-comment period before implementing new interpretive rules, which includes agency...more
On March 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, U.S., No. 13-1041, effectively ended the use of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) administrative exemption for mortgage-loan...more
Federal agencies are not required to follow formal notice-and-comment rulemaking when making significant changes to interpretive rules, according to a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court. In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association,...more
On March 9th, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the D.C. Circuit's opinion on federal agency rulemaking in Perez, Secretary of Labor v. Mortgage Bankers Association, holding that federal agencies need not issue...more
In June, we wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to address whether a federal agency (in this case, the Department of Labor) must engage in formal notice-and-comment rulemaking in order to significantly alter its...more
The Supreme Court today ruled that, when an agency revises its interpretive rules, it need not go through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Although the decision, in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, required the court to...more