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
Are You a Foreign Agent? [More with McGlinchey, Ep. 21
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 248: Listen and Learn -- Introduction to Homicide
VIDEO: Update on Third Party Workers’ Compensation Settlements in Pennsylvania
The environmental organization Earthjustice submitted May 19th comments to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fishery Service (collectively, “Services”) addressing their proposed rescission of the...more
The Trump administration changes course on regulatory interpretations relating to the scope of protections for endangered and threatened species and migratory birds. ...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (Services) proposed a rule to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The proposed rule...more
On April 17, 2025, the Departments of Interior and Commerce issued a proposed rule to rescind the regulatory definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which, if finalized, would fundamentally alter a...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“USFWS”) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) (collectively the “Services”) published a notice in the Federal Register of a proposed rulemaking that would...more
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register to rescind their respective...more
Earlier this week, my colleagues Adam Kahn and Kevin Chen posted about the proposed rule issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service that would rescind the definition of “harm” under the...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
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service proposed a rulemaking to rescind the definition of “harm” in the Endangered Species Act regulations. The change is being made to...more
On April 17, 2025, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a notice of proposed rulemaking to rescind the definition of “harm” under the Endangered Species Act...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
On April 17, 2025, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, Services) published a notice in the Federal Register proposing to rescind the Services’ respective...more
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, in part, “nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The federal Endangered Species Act deals with a different type of “taking.”...more
On March 29, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (District Court) vacated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) special 4(d) rule for the northern distinct population segment (DPS) of the lesser...more
On May 14, 2021, the Department of Justice filed a brief with the Supreme Court arguing that the Court should not hear the case of Kansas Natural Resource Coalition v. Department of Interior (“KNRC”). KNRC is a challenge to a...more
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a proposed rule on January 30, 2020, that narrowly interprets the protections afforded by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The new rule would provide that the MBTA prohibits only the...more
In a unanimous decision with immediate repercussions for the administration of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an area is eligible for designation as critical habitat under the ESA only if...more
The Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, and Animal Legal Defense Fund (collectively “CBD”) filed an October 17th Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (“Complaint”) challenging the issuance of...more
In a decision issued earlier this week, a U.S. District Court rejected the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) interpretation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), finding that its interpretation of the critical habitat...more
On July 1, 2014, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service jointly published a final policy providing their interpretation of the phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range,’’ which is part...more