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®
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 3: The Future of Agency Deference in Healthcare Regulation
An In-Depth Analysis of the CFPB's Proposed Overdraft Rule — Payments Pros – The Payments Law Podcast
Overruling Chevron: A Potential Double-Edged Sword for the Financial Services Industry — The Consumer Finance Podcast
An In-Depth Analysis of the CFPB’s Proposed Overdraft Rule - The Consumer Finance Podcast
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
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The U.S. Supreme Court Hears Two Cases in Which the Plaintiffs Seek to Overturn the Chevron Judicial Deference Framework Part I
#WorkforceWednesday: Federal Agencies Pushing Boundaries Met with Backlash, Impacts of SCOTUS Chevron Deference - Employment Law This Week®
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Will Chevron Deference Survive in the U.S. Supreme Court? An Important Discussion to Hear in Advance of the January 17th Oral Argument
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: What the Recent Developments in Federal Preemption for National and State Banks Mean for Bank and Nonbank Consumer Financial Services Providers
PM NAAQS: Already behind schedule is perhaps the mostly widely impactful rule change EPA has proposed in many years: a lowering of the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for fine particulate matter (PM2.5). EPA has...more
Last week, EPA issued its “Supplemental Finding”, confirming that it still believes that its Mercury and Air Toxics Standards are “appropriate and necessary.” I don’t have much to add to our post at the time of the proposed...more
On August 3, 2015, President Obama and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a new set of final regulations aimed at reducing carbon output from power plants. The sweeping new Clean Power Plan (CPP) sets limits...more
On June 29, 2015, the Supreme Court cast serious doubt upon the future of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (“MATS”) by finding that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) failed to adequately consider the costs of...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s June 29th decision in Michigan v. EPA, taken together with another significant CAA opinion from last term, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, demonstrates the Court’s proclivity for subjecting...more
Delivering a sharp blow to President Obama’s efforts to regulate coal plants, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) 2012 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, finding that...more
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court halted further implementation of a U.S. EPA’s regulation limiting mercury and other hazardous air toxic emissions from coal- and oil-fired electric power plants. In a 5-4 decision, the...more
The Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule ("MATS") for electric utility steam generating units has been reversed and remanded with the Supreme Court’s much-anticipated decision in Michigan v. EPA on June 29, 2015. Writing for...more
On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered another warning to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) against overstepping its statutory authority under the Clean Air Act. In Michigan v. Environmental Protection...more
On June 29, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was wrong not to consider the cost of compliance when it decided to regulate mercury and other air toxic substances emitted from power...more
On June 29, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency invalidated the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Mercury and Toxic Air Standards (MATS) regulation by a 5 to 4 vote, finding that...more
While the Court’s decision marks a symbolic defeat for EPA, it may not significantly alter power plant operators’ compliance efforts. In a much anticipated decision delivered on the last day of the term, the Supreme...more
The US Supreme Court held yesterday that the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unreasonably failed to consider costs when it made the initial decision to regulate emissions of hazardous air pollutants from power...more
On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 14-46, and two other consolidated cases, holding that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acted unreasonably,...more
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) improperly refused to consider costs when it decided to regulate mercury and other hazardous emissions. The EPA regulated power plant...more
The short answer is, yes, though the majority is more wrong. In fact, the issue in Michigan v. EPA seems so simple that the MATS rule could have been affirmed in a two-page opinion. Judge Scalia notes that the word...more