#administrative-law

#administrative-law

The case centers on reimbursement requests submitted by local governments under federal migrant support grants. Those requests were filed before Homeland Security formally terminated the grants, and the law requires agencies to process reimbursements within a statutory 30-day window. Instead of paying up or offering a lawful explanation for denying the requests, the administration froze the funds and then argued that it no longer had to meet the reimbursement deadline because the grants were now in "closeout."

Lawyer demands IRS recognize pets as dependents. [ Forbes] How many laws does Santa Clause break in one night. [ Legal Cheek] Supreme Court lays groundwork for "except for agencies that effect our personal wealth" exception to the novel theory they expounded in the FTC oral argument. The "pets as dependents" argument seems positively well-founded by comparison. [ Reuters] National Trust sues over Trump's ballroom plans. [ Law360]

Trump officials have been especially aggressive in targeting offshore wind projects, including ones already approved or even under construction. Driving the news: Judge Patti Saris, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, ruled Monday that Trump's Jan. 20 order is "arbitrary and capricious" under administrative law. The ruling came in a case brought by New York and other states, and the nonprofit Alliance For Clean Energy New York.

For the past five years, I have taught Legislation & Regulation at Oklahoma City University School of Law, a course situated at the intersection of administrative law, statutory interpretation, and legislative design. Each semester, my students and I return to a foundational question: when, if at all, should courts defer to agency views, and when must the judiciary exercise independent interpretive judgment?

For the past five years, I have taught Legislation & Regulation at Oklahoma City University School of Law-a course at the crossroads of administrative law, statutory interpretation, and the legislative process. Each semester, my students and I return to a central inquiry: when, if ever, should courts defer to agency interpretations, and when must judges exercise their own independent judgment? That question has taken on new urgency in the wake of the Supreme Court's recent restructuring of administrative law.

Many districts have refused to comply with the administration's directives, issued under an executive order that labeled transgender people "false," prompting the withholding of tens of millions of dollars in federal education funds. Now, in a major development, a federal judge in Oregon has informed all parties in a lawsuit brought by 16 states that she intends to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the restrictions-marking a significant victory for transgender students and a sharp rebuke to those who see capitulation as the only path forward.

Chief Justice John Roberts let President Donald Trump remove a member of the Federal Trade Commission on Monday, the latest in string of high-profile firings allowed for now at the Supreme Court. Trump moved to fire Rebecca Slaughter in the spring, but lower courts ordered her reinstated after she sued because the law only allows commissioners to be removed for problems like misconduct or neglect of duty.

Plaintiffs collectively challenge the decision to freeze and then terminate the grants on three primary grounds, contending that (1) the funding decisions were made in response to Harvard's refusal to capitulate to Defendants' content- and viewpoint- based demands and its subsequent decision to file a lawsuit, in violation of the First Amendment. The order added: (2) the grant terminations did not comply with the procedural requirements of Title VI and are thus invalid;