Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Impact of the Election on the FTC
Solicitors General Insights: A Deep Dive With Mississippi and Tennessee Solicitors General — Regulatory Oversight Podcast
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Everything You Want to Know About the CFPB as Things Stand Today, and Lots More - Part 2
Podcast - FTC Commissioner Dismissals: Background and Implications
FCPA Compliance Report: Death of CTA
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prof. Hal Scott Doubles Down on His Argument That CFPB is Unlawfully Funded Because of Combined Losses at Federal Reserve Banks
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 55 - The Power of the Presidential Pardon: Traditions and Turning Points
False Claims Act Insights - Are the FCA’s Qui Tam Provisions Unconstitutional? One Federal Judge Says “Yes"
In That Case: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
#WorkforceWednesday® - SpaceX Victory: Court Questions NLRB's Constitutional Authority - Employment Law This Week®
#WorkforceWednesday: Can FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Survive Without Chevron Deference? - Spilling Secrets Podcast
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday® - Chevron Deference Overturned - Employment Law This Week®
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Did the Supreme Court Hand the CFPB a Pyrrhic Victory?
Early Returns Law and Politics with Jan Baran: A Supreme Path: From Latin to Campaign Finance Law, to 38 Oral Arguments – Kannon Shanmugam
A Supreme Path: From Latin to Campaign Finance Law, to 38 Oral Arguments – Kannon Shanmugam
Proceso constituyente en Colombia Parte II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s Use of Unfairness to Regulate Discriminatory Conduct: A Discussion of the Consumer and Industry Perspectives
John Neiman on the Corporate Transparency Act
On January 10, 2025, the Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal in Becerra v. Braidwood Management, Inc. (“Braidwood”). The case (discussed in a prior Groom alert), on appeal from the Fifth Circuit, will determine if the...more
As we anticipated in our October 17, 2024, blog, both the Government and the Relator have appealed the district court’s decision in U.S. ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al. (Zafirov), the first case to...more
Federal Government Urges Court of Appeals to Uphold Constitutionality of FCA Qui Tam Provisions - In a brief filed earlier this week, the US federal government has urged the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the...more
A recent Florida district court decision declared that the False Claims Act’s (FCA) qui tam provision violates the Constitution by vesting executive power in private whistleblowers (relators) that have not been appointed by...more
The Zafirov decision finds that the False Claims Act qui tam provision violates Article II of the US Constitution. On September 30, 2024, in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates LLC, Judge Kathryn...more
On September 30, 2024, Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an order in United States ex rel. Clarissa Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, holding that the...more
A federal court in Florida this week ruled that the qui tam provision of the False Claims Act (FCA) is unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause in Article II of the U.S. Constitution, creating an opportunity for a split...more
Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas’s dissent in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Executive Health Resources, Inc., 599 U.S. 419 (2023) (“Polansky”), resurrected an old debate about whether the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam...more
In recent months, False Claims Act (FCA) defendants have increasingly sought to challenge the constitutionality of the statute’s qui tam provisions. This trend gained momentum following Justice Thomas’s dissent in United...more
This July, we detailed the Supreme Court’s surprising revival in United States ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Resources, No. 21-1052 (S. Ct. June 16, 2023) of the question of whether the qui tam provisions of the False...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision unanimously reversing the Ninth Circuit in Axon Enterprise v. Federal Trade Commission is likely to represent a monumental shift in pre-enforcement challenges to administrative...more
A Delaware-based online payday lender and its founder and CEO (collectively, “petitioners”) recently submitted a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit’s affirmation of a...more
The Federal Circuit’s decision on May 27, 2022 in Arthrex Inc. v. Smith & Nephew Inc. et al., set forth that Patent Commissioner, Drew Hirshfeld, was within the bounds of the U.S. Supreme Court’s United States v. Arthrex...more
Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., Appeal No. 2018-2140 (Fed. Cir. May 27, 2022) In a return to the Federal Circuit, this case again sets precedent concerning Patent Office Director review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board...more
This alert addresses proceedings in two SEC securities enforcement actions emanating out of the Fifth Circuit. Both pose issues relating to the SEC’s power to bring enforcement proceedings in front of in-house administrative...more
Key Takeaways - ..The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hear cases that may curtail the administrative powers of the SEC. ..These rulings may portend greater limits on federal administrative agencies generally....more
Two recent decisions have put the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) in-house administrative proceedings in the crosshairs. First, on May 16, 2022, the US Supreme Court agreed to consider whether Administrative Law...more
[co-author: Jamie Dohopolski] Last year, the continued global COVID-19 pandemic forced American courts to largely continue the procedures set in place in 2020. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was no...more
On June 21, 2021 the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in U.S. v. Arthrex Inc. Two questions were before the court. First, are administrative patent judges principal officers who must be appointed by the president...more
For those familiar with inter partes review—or IPR, as it is known—the recent Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Arthrex was much anticipated because it carried with it the potential to upend the entire IPR system. IPR has...more
The US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO) updated its June 29, 2021, interim procedure to implement the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in U.S. v. Arthrex, Inc., and specifically updated the Arthrex Q&As section....more
On June 21, 2021, the Supreme Court handed down a highly-anticipated decision in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., finding that Administrative Patent Judges (“APJs”)—the judges who sit on Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”)...more
Supreme Court Opinions - United States v. Arthrex, Inc. (No. 19-1434, 6/21/21) - Vacating Federal Circuit decision regarding IPRs and remanding. In split decisions, majorities of the Court (1) held that administrative...more
The Supreme Court held this week that the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“USPTO”) appointment of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) judges cannot be constitutionally enforced because the USPTO director does...more
In Arthrex v. Smith & Nephew, the Supreme Court determined: (i) whether the authority of Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) to issue decisions on behalf of the Executive Branch is consistent with the Appointments Clause of...more