Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
The Loper Bright Decision - What Really Happened to Chevron and What's Next
Podcast - Legislative Implications of Loper Bright and Corner Post Decisions
#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
On April 16, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss a case involving claims that DOGE and several federal agencies (including the DOL, the...more
On February 28, the Department of Labor, the CFPB, and the DHHS (the defendants), filed a motion to dismiss in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and a week later, a coalition of labor unions (the...more
Only weeks after the principal effective date for the final 2024 federal mental health parity rules for employer-sponsored health benefit plans, those rules—and specifically some key features that are frustrating...more
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce (Loper Bright), overturning Chevron U.S.A. Inc v. Natural...more
In a recent win for health care providers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s decision to vacate key portions of regulations issued by the U.S. Departments of Treasury,...more
On December 18, 2023, the US Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) issued a rule finalizing the 2024 non-refundable administrative fee parties must pay to access the arbitration...more
On September 20, 2023, the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury (the Departments) announced the Federal Independent Dispute Resolution (IDR) Process Administrative Fee and Certified IDR Entity Fee...more
The Texas Medical Association and additional plaintiffs have brought four Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenges to the rules and guidance implementing the No Surprises Act (NSA) (termed TMA I, II, III and IV). The...more
On August 3, 2023, health care providers in Texas scored yet another victory when a federal court vacated additional portions of the Biden Administration’s rules governing fee collection and claim batching under the federal...more
Last week, a number of developments arose stemming from the various lawsuits challenging the No Surprises Act. First, in response to the Eastern District of Texas’ order vacating the administrative fee guidance for the...more
On February 6, a US district court in Texas vacated provisions of the No Surprises Act final rule related to the independent dispute resolution (IDR) process for determining payment for out-of-network services....more
In parallel cases, health care providers are continuing to challenge rulemaking by the US Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) under the No Surprises Act (the Act). Having already...more
In late September 2022, health care providers in Texas sued the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (collectively, the Departments) over a recently issued final rule implementing the federal No...more
On February 23, 2022, the Texas Medical Association was granted summary judgment in its challenge to portions of the second set of implementing regulations that implement the No Surprises Act’s Independent Dispute Resolution...more
Two chambers of commerce, the Chamber of Commerce the United States of America and the Tyler (TX) Area Chamber of Commerce, filed a lawsuit on August 10, 2021, in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas...more
On July 8, 2020, the United States Supreme Court decided two cases addressing employers’ religious freedoms in very different contexts: one concerning whether religious school teachers could challenge adverse employment...more
On July 8, 2020, in the consolidated cases of Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania et al. and Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. Pennsylvania et al., the U.S. Supreme...more
On Wednesday, July 8, 2020, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether religious employers are required to offer their employees health plans that include contraceptive coverage. In its opinion in Little Sisters of the Poor v....more
The Supreme Court just upheld two Trump-era rules expanding religious and moral exemptions to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) contraceptive mandate. The July 8 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor v. Pennsylvania is just...more
In Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania, the Supreme Court this week upheld regulations issued by the U.S. Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) that...more
On July 8, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two 7-2 decisions involving religious exemptions to federal employment and benefits laws....more
This week, the Supreme Court ruled that employers may exclude coverage for birth control from their health plans based upon moral or religious objections to contraception. ...more
Until this week, federal law required most insurance plans to cover the cost of birth control without a copay. However, the history behind this issue can be traced back much further....more
On July 8, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania and Trump v. Pennsylvania, holding that the Department of Health and Human Services validly created...more
Editor's Overview - In this month’s newsletter, our colleagues focus on two sets of legislative updates. First is a discussion of the IRS’s proposed Treasury Regulations prescribing rules under Section 457 of the...more