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
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, in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado (2025) 605 U.S. ____, the Supreme Court gave instruction that the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) “is a procedural cross-check, not...more
Supreme Court aims to provide predictability by narrowing the scope of NEPA review - The Supreme Court’s latest ruling in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County marks a significant “course correction” in how...more
Seven County Infrastructure Coalition et al. v. Eagle County, Colorado, et al. The U.S. Supreme Court recently clarified the scope of federal agency review requirements under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”)...more
In a significant decision interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado on May 29, 2025. For certain...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
On March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, holding that EPA does not have the authority to issue “end-result” requirements in National...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
Over the last half century, federal courts have interpreted the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to require federal agencies to study an ever-growing range of indirect effects and impacts when approving large...more
On May 29, 2025, in a 8-0 ruling (Justice Gorsuch recused himself from the case), the Supreme Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit erred in requiring federal regulators to evaluate the potential...more
The decision emphasizes the importance of judicial deference to agencies on NEPA and narrows the scope of environmental analyses....more
Changes in federal and many states’ laws (e.g., just last month in Arizona) may put industry on more equal footing with agencies when interpreting rules and permit terms. If agencies have overreached on these interpretations,...more
On March 4, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 5-4 opinion in City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, holding that “end-result” requirements routinely imposed by the EPA in NPDES permits issued...more
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed the authority of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to regulate weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers as “firearms” under the Gun...more
On April 9, the White House issued a memorandum directing federal executive departments and agencies to repeal regulations deemed unlawful pursuant to certain U.S. Supreme Court decisions. This directive aims to address...more
On April 9, 2025, President Trump signed a Presidential Memorandum (Memorandum) entitled Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations. The Memorandum – part of a broader “Department of Government Efficiency” Deregulatory...more
In a much-anticipated decision, the U.S. Supreme Court significantly narrowed the EPA's authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) to impose so-called "end-result" requirements in NPDES permits. These "end-result" requirements...more
In November 2023 we discussed the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision to strike down a Biden-era firearm regulation concerning “ghost guns,” concluding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)...more
On March 26, 2025, the Supreme Court decided Bondi, Attorney General, et al. v. Vanderstok, et al., No. 23-852, and held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) rule interpreting the Gun Control...more
The Supreme Court decided two cases today, continuing the release of opinions on which the Court is not deeply divided. The tougher ones are yet to come....more
In City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency, 604 U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 704 (2025), in a 5-4 decision issued on March 4, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down two provisions in San...more
The US Supreme Court held in City and County of San Francisco v. EPA that the US Environmental Protection Agency lacks authority under the Clean Water Act to include “end-result” limitations in National Pollutant Discharge...more
On March 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its decision in City & County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency and clarified the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") and state...more
We have previously written about two consolidated cases (Loper Bright and Relentless), in which the Supreme Court reversed a decades-old rule known as the Chevron doctrine. Broadly, the Chevron doctrine required courts to...more
In the US Supreme Court’s first post-Chevron decision involving the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the Supreme Court found against EPA, invalidating ‘end result’ NPDES permit requirements....more