#WorkforceWednesday®: Can the President Fire NLRB Members Without Cause? SCOTUS May Decide - Employment Law This Week®
The Impact of the Horn Case on RICO - RICO Report Podcast
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
Hospice Insights Podcast - What a Difference No Deference Makes: Courts No Longer Bow to Administrative Agencies
(Podcast) The Briefing: Bad Spirits – How a Dog Toy Changed TV Title Clearance
The Briefing: Bad Spirits – How a Dog Toy Changed TV Title Clearance
The Loper Bright Decision - What Really Happened to Chevron and What's Next
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Demise of the Chevron Doctrine – Part I
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: The Cantero Opinion: The Supreme Court Leaves National Bank Preemption in Limbo
In That Case: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Regulatory Uncertainty: Benefits-Related Legal Challenges in a Post-Chevron World — Troutman Pepper Podcast
In That Case: Department of State v. Muñoz
The End of Chevron Deference: Implications of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright Decision — The Consumer Finance Podcast
In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
In That Case: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday® - Chevron Deference Overturned - Employment Law This Week®
In That Case: Cantero v. Bank of America
Early Returns Podcast with Jan Baran - Josh Gerstein: SCOTUS, the Presidential Immunity Case Fallout, and the Dobbs Case Leak Investigation
In the last five years, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided several cases involving the limits on federal appellate review of immigration agency decisions, turning out an average of a decision per year. Originally published...more
In its first merits decision this term, the Supreme Court provided a straightforward application of textualism to demonstrate that in cases challenging administrative action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA),...more
Texas did not have standing to challenge the Biden Administration’s policy priorities regarding removal of noncitizens, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. United States v. Texas, No. 22-58 (June 23, 2023)....more
The first Monday of October means the Supreme Court begins to hear cases for the new term. As we promised at the end of last term, below we summarize cases the Court could address, including issues involving the federal Clean...more
The US Supreme Court’s decisions of late have been consequential. While headline-grabbing decisions deal with religious liberties, privacy, and gun control, the Court’s impact on administrative law will have major...more
On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Biden v. Texas, No. 21-954. The Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not prohibit the Biden administration’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS)...more
On July 16, a federal judge in Texas vacated the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Judge Andrew Hanen ruled that the DACA was unlawfully created by the Executive Branch in violation of the Administrative...more
Trump v. Sierra Club, No. 20-138: This case concerns the Acting Secretary of Defense’s transfer of funds pursuant to Section 8005 of the Defense Appropriations Act to make funds available to construct border fences along the...more
On June 18, 2020, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration's termination of the Deferred Action for Children Arrivals (DACA) program violated Federal law....more
Court Decision - On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decision in 2017 to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program violated the...more
In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts (the “DACA Opinion”), the Supreme Court has concluded that the rescission of the DACA program by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was arbitrary and capricious and...more
The Trump administration has already announced its goal to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy commenced on June 15, 2012 by President Obama within the next six months post the decision of the U.S....more
In a landmark 5–4 decision issued June 18, the US Supreme Court held that the Department of Homeland Security’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was unlawful agency action....more
As previously reported by Mintz, last week the U.S. Supreme Court upheld three lower court rulings, holding that President Trump’s 2017 move to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was unlawful...more
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Supreme Court allows DACA to proceed on the grounds that DHS did not meet the regulatory Administrative Procedures Act requirements in rescinding the program. The Court did not rule on the legality of...more
- The U.S. Supreme Court held that the Trump administration did not properly terminate the DACA program under the APA. - The DACA program is restored to its full form, as it existed prior to the rescission in 2017. -...more
On Thursday, June 18, the Supreme Court rejected the Trump Administration’s attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children, known as...more
On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in DHS v. Regents of the University of California, No. 18-587, effectively blocking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) attempt to end...more
Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., No. 18-587; Trump v. NAACP, No. 18-588; Wolf v. Vidal, No. 18-589: In 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) announced the Deferred Action for Childhood...more
The U.S. Supreme Court blocked the rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program on June 18, 2020, finding that the Department of Homeland Security’s actions in retracting the immigration relief program...more
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a long-awaited decision regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) choice to rescind the immigration program Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”). The...more
On June 18, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, holding that the Department of Homeland Security’s rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood...more
On June 18, 2020, The United States Supreme Court ruled, 5 to 4, that the Trump Administration could not immediately shut down DACA, a program protecting nearly 700,000 young immigrants, many children, from Deportation....more
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, 2020, blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to rescind the DACA program, which protects hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the United States as children from potential...more
SCOTUS: Title VII Protects LGBTQ and Transgender Employees. On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States released its historical decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, holding that discrimination against...more