Ampliación del fuero de paternidad
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
On June 2, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge brought by a member firm against the enforcement power given to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”). The Court’s decision to turn away...more
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued two historic rulings in the case of Learning Resources, Inc., et al., vs. Donald Trump, et al. First, it ruled that the Court of International Trade...more
On March 25, 2025, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) issued a 100-page Administrative Order and Decision confirming and modifying its sanctions of Alpine Securities Corporation, which include expulsion from...more
In April, the United States Supreme Court denied certiorari in Antonyuk v. James, a case challenging many of the restrictions imposed by New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA). As a result, the Second Circuit’s...more
The short answer is that the outcome of the Supreme Court hearing (whose oral argument is scheduled for May 15 at 10 am) is of immense importance to all stakeholders in the consumer financial services industry. We will...more
Today’s podcast features Stephen Calkins, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and former General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”). President Trump recently fired, without good cause, the...more
The motions docket of the U.S. Supreme Court remains busy. Following the April 4 decision in Department of Education v. California—in which the Court, treating a temporary restraining order (TRO) as if it were a preliminary...more
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship,” aiming to narrow the application of birthright citizenship in the United States. The...more
The Trump Administration urged the U.S. Supreme Court to limit nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of the executive order (EO) to end birthright citizenship. Following his inauguration on Jan. 20, 2025, President...more
The first weeks of the Trump Administration have been defined by executive orders and new policies that were immediately challenged on constitutional or statutory grounds....more
On February 25, 2025, the United States Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who obtain a preliminary injunction are not eligible for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) because they do not qualify as “prevailing...more
The U.S. Supreme Court decided two cases yesterday, one of which, Lackey v. Stinnie, involved an action brought pursuant to 42 U. S. C. §1983 and should be of particular interest to the many readers of this blog who practice...more
On February 25, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Lackey v. Stinnie, holding that obtaining a preliminary injunction does not bestow a litigant with the status of “prevailing party,” as required for an award of attorney’s...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions today: Lackey v. Stinnie, No. 23-621: This case clarifies when attorneys’ fees may be awarded to a “prevailing party” in a civil rights lawsuit via 42 U.S.C....more
Developments concerning the enforceability and enforcement of the CTA came at a rapid clip last week. As things stand, the government may enforce the CTA pending a Texas court appeal in Smith v. U.S. Department of the...more
As of February 18, 2025, the US Department of the Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s (FinCEN) Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) reporting requirements have been restored—at least temporarily. The new filing...more
Companies are once again required to comply with the CTA and its reporting obligations. As discussed in our previous update, last month the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) stayed (i.e., suspended the effect of)...more
As discussed last month, in early January, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued a nationwide injunction temporarily blocking enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) (see Smith et al....more
The preliminary injunction in Smith, et al. v. U.S. Department of the Treasury that was still pausing any required filings by reporting companies under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) was lifted on February 17, 2025 by...more
Here are the latest developments in the ongoing Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) saga...more
AT A GLANCE - Multiple US federal district court judges (including in the states of Maryland and Washington on February 5 and 6, respectively) have issued nationwide injunctions pausing the implementation of the recent...more
On February 5, 2025, the Trump administration added a new chapter to the saga that has been implementation of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), filing a notice of appeal and motion for stay against an Eastern District of...more
The Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), enacted in 2021, mandates that companies disclose their true ownership to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to combat illicit financial activities. However, its...more
On Jan. 23, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the Dec. 5 nationwide injunction in Texas Top Cop Shop, Inc. v. Garland (E.D. Tex.) that had halted Corporate Transparency Act (“CTA”) enforcement nationwide. The stay of this...more
On January 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the government’s motion to lift the nationwide injunction against enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) in Texas Top Cop Shop v. McHenry (formerly, Texas Top...more