Podcast - Betty... embargaron Ecomoda
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Impact of the Election on the FTC
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: A Deep Dive Into Judge Jackson’s Preliminary Injunction Order Against CFPB Acting Director Vought
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Prominent Journalist, David Dayen, Describes his Reporting on the Efforts of Trump 2.0 to Curb CFPB
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 303: Listen and Learn -- Injunctions and Restraining Orders (Civ Pro)
False Claims Act Insights - Can DE&I Initiatives Lead to Potential False Claims Act Liability?
SCOTUS Limits Availability of Injunctions in NLRB Unfair Labor Practice Cases - Employment Law This Week®
Post-Injunction Enforcement — Highway to NIL Podcast
The NCAA's Response to the NIL Recruitment Injunction — Highway to NIL Podcast
NIL Recruitment Injunction — Highway to NIL Podcast
Injunctions for All – Speaking of Litigation Podcast
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Jack Nicklaus Companies Landed Hole-In-One With Court’s Recent Injunction
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Jack Nicklaus Companies Landed Hole-In-One With Court’s Recent Injunction
#WorkforceWednesday: Employee Privacy and COVID-19, CMS Vaccine Mandate on Hold, Independent Contractor Classification - Employment Law This Week®
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 86: Tackling a California Bar Exam Essay: Remedies
#WorkforceWednesday: Component 2 Pay Data Shutdown, CDC Coronavirus Guidance, and California Employers Fight Back - Employment Law This Week®
E18: ICANN Loses First GDPR Court Ruling in Germany
In the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s ruling on June 27 invalidating universal injunctions as the remedy imposed by three federal district courts that had determined that President Trump’s Executive Order limiting...more
On July 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States granted the Trump administration’s request to stay a lower-court judge’s order blocking President Donald Trump’s plan to reduce and restructure the federal workforce,...more
"Reverse discrimination," ADA, religion, and nationwide injunctions. The 2024-25 term of the U.S. Supreme Court is over. Two decisions at the end of the term directly addressed employment law issues, and two others will have...more
In a decision issued on June 27, 2025, Trump v. CASA, Inc. (a 6-3 ruling), the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal District Courts lack authority to grant universal injunctions. In CASA, the United States District Courts for...more
In Trump v. Casa, the Supreme Court addressed three emergency applications challenging the use of universal injunctions that bar enforcement of federal action across the country. The case concerned the entry of a temporary...more
On June 27, 2025, in a 6-3 opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A884, 606 U.S. ___ (2025), that federal courts lack the power to issue “universal injunctions,” a...more
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