Aligning Business Goals with Legal Strategies Amid Regulatory Change – Speaking of Litigation Video Podcast
Predictions regarding the 2023 CRA Rule and Section 1071 and how to prepare for expected developments
Early Days of the Trump Administration: Impact on the CFPB — The Consumer Finance Podcast
2024 Payments Year in Review: CFPB and FTC Regulatory Trends – Part Two — Payments Pros – The Payments Law Podcast
FCRA Regulatory Year in Review — FCRA Focus Podcast
The Congressional Review Act – A Critical Tool for the New Administration
#WorkforceWednesday®: NLRB’s Expanding Power - Pushback and Legal Challenges Ahead - Employment Law This Week®
Cannabis Law Now Podcast: What’s Next for Schedule III Marijuana
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Reasons Why the CFPB Should Deny the Petition for Rulemaking on Post-Dispute Consumer Arbitration Agreements
AD Nauseam: Junk Fees Will Keep Us Together
CFPB's Rulemaking Under the FCRA (Part 3) – Crossover Episode With FCRA Focus Podcast
PLI's inSecurities Podcast - The Dangers of Regulation by Enforcement
CFPB's Rulemaking Under the FCRA – Crossover Episode With FCRA Focus Podcast - The Consumer Finance Podcast
CFPB's Larger Participant Rule for Consumer Payments - The Consumer Finance Podcast
Quick Takeaways From the 2024 Proposed Hospice Wage Index Rule
State AG Pulse | State AGs and Feds: The Dynamics of Influence & Collaboration
New Trends in How the CFPB Gathers Information - The Consumer Finance Podcast
State AG Pulse | Attorneys General as State Policymakers: The NY Model
Paredes on SEC Policies & Priorities
Podcast: 2023 Health Policy Outlook - Diagnosing Health Care
On February 14, 2025, the Fifth Circuit denied the appellants’ petition for rehearing en banc in Mayfield v. United States Dep’t of Labor—a September 2024 decision holding that the U.S. Department of Labor’s authority to...more
On November 15, 2024, in State of Texas v. United States Dep’t of Labor, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas ruled that the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) exceeded its rulemaking authority by...more
For the past several years, an action by the Mortgage Bankers Association has been brewing in the courts challenging the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) for issuing contradictory opinion letters on whether mortgage loan...more
In a March 9, 2015, decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass'n., the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that an interpretative rule issued by an administrative agency does not require notice and opportunity for comment,...more
The legal ping-pong match between the Department of Labor (DOL) and the Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) over whether mortgage loan officers are eligible for overtime appears to be at an end. The Supreme Court recently...more
In a unanimous decision on Monday, March 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court gave the Department of Labor (DOL) broad discretion to revise interpretive guidance with little notice. ...more
On March 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled unanimously in two consolidated cases that a federal agency does not have to go through the formal rulemaking process, which includes providing public notice and an...more
Companies subject to federal agency regulations sometimes face situations where measures taken to comply with such rules work one day, and then result in violations of those rules the next. Federal administrative agencies...more
On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that when a federal administrative agency wants to amend or repeal an “interpretive rule,” it does not have to follow the notice-and-comment procedures set forth in the...more
On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court wiped away a longstanding judicial doctrine that had placed greater procedural requirements on a federal agency when it changes its prior interpretation of a federal regulation....more
On March 9, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court held that a federal agency is not required to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking when it issues an interpretation of a regulation that is significantly different from its prior...more
In a case we labeled one of the “cases to watch” this term, a relatively unified Supreme Court decided in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association that a federal agency does not need to engage in notice-and-comment rulemaking...more
The U.S. Supreme Court handed the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) a victory in a battle over whether the agency's reversal of its stance on the exempt status of mortgage loan officers was subject to public notice and comment....more
On March 9, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Ass’n, No. 13-1041 (Mar. 9, 2015), holding federal administrative agencies may amend or repeal interpretive rules without following...more
On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court held that agencies such as the Department of Labor (DOL) are not required to provide a public notice-and-comment period before implementing new interpretive rules, which includes agency...more
On March 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, U.S., No. 13-1041, effectively ended the use of the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (“FLSA”) administrative exemption for mortgage-loan...more
Federal agencies are not required to follow formal notice-and-comment rulemaking when making significant changes to interpretive rules, according to a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court. In Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association,...more
On March 9th, 2015 the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the D.C. Circuit's opinion on federal agency rulemaking in Perez, Secretary of Labor v. Mortgage Bankers Association, holding that federal agencies need not issue...more
In June, we wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to address whether a federal agency (in this case, the Department of Labor) must engage in formal notice-and-comment rulemaking in order to significantly alter its...more
The Supreme Court today ruled that, when an agency revises its interpretive rules, it need not go through notice-and-comment rulemaking. Although the decision, in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, required the court to...more
Monday, in a 9-0 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court abolished a precedent on which the regulated community has relied to keep federal agencies in check for nearly 20 years. This precedent, commonly referred to as the Paralyzed...more
On March 9, 2015, the United States Supreme Court decided Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, No. 13-1041, holding that a federal administrative agency does not need to use the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA)...more