This article explores why state attorneys general are poised to elevate the regulatory scrutiny of digital asset businesses.
The Major Questions Doctrine Raises Major Questions for the SEC’s Proposed Climate Rule
The U.S. Supreme Court in West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, recently struck down the EPA’s “Clean Power Plan Rule” that sought to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The court concluded that the rule exceeded the EPA’s power, as it presented a “major question” of economic and national importance that required a clearer statement from Congress to confer such authority. But the “major questions” doctrine also has implications for other federal agencies—who together issue an estimated three thousand to five thousand final rules per year. This article looks at the SEC’s attempts to mandate more climate-related disclosures with West Virginia in mind.
O’Melveny Adds Crypto/Cyber Expert from U.S. Attorney’s Office
Sid Mody served as digital currency crimes coordinator and national security cyber specialist for the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Texas.
Fifth Circuit Invites Constitutional Challenges to SEC’s ‘No Admit, No Deny’ Policy
A handful of Fifth Circuit judges seem to have it out for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and “the agency’s current activism.” Two judges issued a concurring opinion that clearly invites defendants being accused of financial fraud to challenge the SEC’s use of “no admit, no deny” settlement agreements. “If you want to settle, SEC’s policy says, ‘Hold your tongue, and don’t say anything truthful – ever’ — or get bankrupted by having to continue litigating with the SEC,” Judge Edith Jones wrote. “A more effective prior restraint is hard to imagine.”
The Texas Lawbook has insight from several legal experts who say they understand Judge Jones’ concerns but say eliminating the “no admit, no deny” provisions in settlements would cause tremendous upheaval in the system and place defendants at an even bigger disadvantage in their negotiations with the federal agency.
Ruan v. United States: SCOTUS Potentially Limits CSA’s Application
In a decision favorable to pharmaceutical prescribers, the United States Supreme Court in Ruan v. United States held that the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant knowingly or intentionally violated the Controlled Substances Act. The decision firmly establishes a good faith defense, and good faith jury instruction when supported by sufficient evidence, for criminal defendants charged with CSA violations.