On March 12, 2025, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a sweeping deregulatory initiative, claiming it to be the “biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history.”
Download PDF version >
This Alert examines CEQ’s recent rollback of NEPA regulations, its implications for federal environmental reviews, and the legal challenges that may shape future agency procedures.
Download PDF version >
In this update, we’ll provide a brief overview of PFAS – a class of compounds widely used in industrial and consumer applications for decades – and highlight key regulatory, litigation, and other PFAS issues from 2024 and look ahead to 2025.
Download PDF version >
This Alert discusses six important lessons learned for HR and employment lawyers based on a new decision by Magistrate Judge Little of the Northern District of Oklahoma.
Download PDF version >
The CTA and its implementing regulations have created a number of new risks and responsibilities. We understand the difficulty in sorting through these new requirements, let alone complying with them. This Alert provides guidance for public companies.
Download PDF version >
When the United States Supreme Court junked the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine this past term in its Loper Bright decision, many in the legal community were wondering what the fallout would look like. Loper Bright liberated courts to freshly interpret statutes and eschew deference to agency interpretations, setting the stage for a flood of rulings invalidating regulations across the administrative state. A prime candidate for attack: the Department of Labor’s “Minimum Salary Rule.”
Download PDF version >
Since 2022, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has been focused on heat-related hazards and possible heat-related injuries and illnesses in indoor and outdoor workplaces. OSHA recently proposed workplace regulations designed to protect workers from heat-related illnesses and fatalities, specifically.
Download PDF version >
Five former Directors of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office recently called on current USPTO Director Kathi Vidal to withdraw proposed changes to terminal disclaimer rules 37 CFR 1.321(c) and (d) (89 FR 40439). What do they mean? Why is this significant?
Download PDF version >