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
Jones Day Presents: Strategies for Dealing with the IRS: Alternative Dispute Resolution
Bill on Bankruptcy: Listening in the Dark at the NCBJ
'Gray Market' Lawyer: Congress Won't Change Copyright Laws
From 1984 until June 2024, a reviewing court had to defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of ambiguous statutes, even if the court would have interpreted the statute differently. In June 2024, the U.S. Supreme...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit recently vacated the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) latest provisions of its Tip Regulations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, colloquially known as the 80/20/30 Rule through...more
On June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, eliminating a fundamental principle of administrative law. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce, No. 22-451, June 28, 2024, overruled long-standing precedent under which courts were to provide substantial deference to...more
On June 28, the Supreme Court handed down Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the prior Supreme Court precedent, articulated in Chevron v. Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc. and known as “the Chevron...more
On Friday, June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron, USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council. Chevron often required courts to defer to federal agencies when those agencies were interpreting statutes they...more
Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court overturned the "Chevron deference" principle from its 1984 Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (and it did so...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the decades-old Chevron doctrine of judicial deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statute. Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, No. 22-451, and Relentless, Inc. v....more
Over the last three decades, federal agencies have increasingly used “interpretations” to “explain” what a formal regulation means, rather than to go through the more expensive, complicated and slow process of changing the...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
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Assn., No. 13 1041: On Monday, March 9, 2015, the Court ruled that a longstanding decision from the DC Circuit under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) was incorrectly decided in contravention...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 U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, that the Department of Labor (DOL) may issue its interpretations of wage and hour regulations without seeking input from the...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