Legal Implications of the Supreme Court's Ruling on Universal Injunctions
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 65 -The Power of Interpretation: Constitutional Meaning in the Modern World
The Presumption of Innocence Podcast: Episode 64 - Cages We Built: The Making of Mass Incarceration in America
Solicitors General Insights: A Deep Dive With Mississippi and Tennessee Solicitors General — Regulatory Oversight 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
False Claims Act Insights - How a Marine Fisheries Dispute Opened an FCA Can of Worms
The Loper Bright Decision - What Really Happened to Chevron and What's Next
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | Episode 210: Impacts of the Chevron Doctrine Ruling with Mark Moore and Michael Parente of Maynard Nexsen
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
In That Case: Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo
Regulatory Uncertainty: Benefits-Related Legal Challenges in a Post-Chevron World — Troutman Pepper Podcast
The End of Chevron Deference: Implications of the Supreme Court's Loper Bright Decision — The Consumer Finance Podcast
Down Goes Chevron: A 40-Year Precedent Overturned by the Supreme Court – Diagnosing Health Care
#WorkforceWednesday® - Chevron Deference Overturned - Employment Law This Week®
AGG Talks: Healthcare Insights Podcast - Episode 3: The Future of Agency Deference in Healthcare Regulation
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Supreme Court Hears Two Cases in Which the Plaintiffs Seek to Overturn the Chevron Judicial Deference Framework: Who Will Win and What Does It Mean? Part II
Consumer Finance Monitor Podcast Episode: Will Chevron Deference Survive in the U.S. Supreme Court? An Important Discussion to Hear in Advance of the January 17th Oral Argument
Podcast: Chevron Deference: Is It Time for Change? - Diagnosing Health Care
The Competition in Contracting Act (CICA) of 1984 establishes a procedure that effectively pauses performance of a federal contract award during a bid protest. If a disappointed bidder files a protest with the Government...more
On June 23, 2025, Judge Matthew J. Maddox of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland denied a motion by President Donald J. Trump and other officials (“Defendants”) to stay his order reinstating three Democratic...more
In a judicial review, the Alberta Court of King’s Bench, in Imperial Oil Resources Limited v. Alberta (Minister of Energy), overturned decisions (Decisions) made by a delegate of the Minister of Energy, the Director of...more
On June 20, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., 606 U.S. —- — S.Ct. —- 2025 WL 1716136 (2025), addressing whether, under the Administrative Orders Review...more
The Supreme Court recently signaled a further shift away from judicial deference to administrative rulings. The question of whether the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA or “the Act”) covers online faxes (think your...more
In McLaughlin Chiropractic Assocs., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226, 2025 WL 1716136 (U.S. June 20, 2025), the Supreme Court determined that the Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to...more
The Administrative Order Review Act (better known as the "Hobbs Act") grants "exclusive jurisdiction" to the federal courts of appeals to "determine the validity" of most FCC orders and rules and certain other agency orders....more
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court released a landmark opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc., v. McKesson Corp., further reshaping the scope of judicial review of agency action. ...more
In New Mexico, vendors who compete for public contracts have legal recourse if they believe that a government solicitation or contract award was improper. The New Mexico Procurement Code provides a formal bid protest process...more
On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., holding that the federal Hobbs Act does not bind district courts in civil enforcement proceedings to a...more
On Friday, June 20th, the Supreme Court in McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc., Inc. v. McKesson Corp., No. 23-1226 (U.S. June 2025), ruled in a 6-3 decision that the Hobbs Act does not bind federal district courts in civil...more
Changes in presidential Administration often mean changes in policy priorities and budgeting, but a Maryland federal district court recently held that the executive branch’s ability to pivot on policy has limits....more
The U.S. Supreme Court on June 18, 2025, decided Nuclear Regulatory Commission v. Texas, 605 U.S. ___ (2025), which involved challenges to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC or Commission) decision to grant a...more
On Wednesday, June 18, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in NRC v. Texas to resolve a circuit split over the storage of spent nuclear fuel between the Tenth Circuit, D.C. Circuit, and Fifth...more
In a significant ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered its 6-3 opinion in McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, addressing the scope of judicial review under the Hobbs Act. The decision marks a...more
A "Course Correction" of NEPA Review - In an 8-0 judgment, the U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that had vacated the U.S. Surface Transportation Board’s (the “Board”)...more
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, clarifying the standards for judicial review of challenges to agency action under the National Environmental Policy Act...more
On May 29, 2025, the Supreme Court—minus recused Justice Neil Gorsuch—decided Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, the first major NEPA dispute before the Court in 20 years. It’s a really big deal—coverage...more
Last week, the Supreme Court issued its eagerly awaited National Environmental Policy Act decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County. We were not disappointed. ...more
On May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an 8-0 opinion that clarifies the scope of environmental effects analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and requires substantial judicial deference to...more
In a landmark ruling issued May 29, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the D.C. Circuit in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, sharply limiting the scope of environmental review...more
Litigants in Puerto Rico now have an easier path to challenge administrative agencies’ determinations after the Puerto Rico Supreme Court (PRSC) ruled in Vázquez v. Consejo de Titulares, 2025 TSPR 56, that courts shall not...more
The Supreme Court of the United States’ opinion, issued May 29, 2025, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, reaffirms the Court’s earlier, seminal decisions expounding judicial review under the...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado represents a significant change in how courts should review the adequacy of an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared...more
A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruled on May 29 that lower courts had overstepped their bounds when reviewing federal agency actions pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The decision in Seven County...more