The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services) proposed revisions to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations that, if finalized, will generally...more
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published four proposed rules in the Federal Register on Nov. 21, 2025 – two of which are jointly proposed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) – that aim to restore much of...more
California recently enacted Assembly Bill 1319, which provides increased state law protections for federally listed species that may be affected by rollbacks in the protections afforded under federal law. ...more
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively referred to as the “Agencies”) proposed on April 17, 2025, to remove the definition of “harm” under their respective...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a proposed rule to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This...more
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) propose rescinding the regulatory definition of "harm" under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that currently includes habitat modification,...more
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (collectively, “Service”) is proposing to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) regulations...more
On April 17, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together Services) published a proposed rule to rescind the long-standing definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species...more
Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (together, the Services) proposed rescinding the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Harming a listed...more
The United States Supreme Court recently brought to a close 40 years of “Chevron deference” and its guidance for legal interpretation of certain federal agency decision-making authority. In two instances, the United States...more
In Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451 (U.S. June 28, 2024), the United States Supreme Court (Roberts, J.) held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires courts to independently determine whether an...more
Forty years ago, the US Supreme Court’s decision in Chevron USA, Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, 46 US 837 (1984), upended administrative law practice. In brief, that case, for which the “Chevron doctrine” is...more
The U.S. Supreme Court recently overturned the Chevron doctrine, a significant legal principle established by Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. For 40 years, lower courts have relied on the Chevron...more
On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference in a 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Case No. 22-452. As a result, courts will no longer need to defer to an agency’s interpretation of a...more
The demise of Chevron opens up new potential defenses in False Claims Act (FCA) cases. On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, put an end to Chevron deference to agency interpretation...more
In a trio of cases, the Supreme Court has changed the balance of power between courts and federal agencies. The combination of these three cases will likely lead to significant litigation in multiple courts, repeated...more
On June 28, the US Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine — the legal principle that the judiciary should defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Chevron reflected the view...more
The Supreme Court is at war with the “administrative state.” In three major cases decided at the end of the Supreme Court’s last term, the Court decided against the administrative state, reducing the powers of administrative...more
On June 28, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo that overturned the “Chevron deference” standard laid out in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense...more
On June 28, the Supreme Court abrogated the Chevron doctrine that has guided courts’ review of agency actions for the past 40 years. Chevron mandated that courts defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous...more
Chevron is out of gas. For the past 40 years, Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (Chevron), was the seminal case of administrative law holding that federal courts defer to agency’s interpretations of...more
Over the last forty years the Chevron doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in Chevron U.S.A, Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), has been a pillar of administrative law in the United...more
In the consolidated cases Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron v. NRDC, the 1984 case that established the...more
On June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which for 40 years required court deference to reasonable agency...more
When an ambiguity exists in a statute for which Congress has not chosen among the reasonable readings, who decides which possible reading should govern? For nearly four decades, courts have followed the rule of Chevron...more