AbitOs Accountants + Advisors的动态

Hmm - how about? - Do not use language open to multiple interpretations. - Delegate to the agencies the procedural questions or the how-to's. - Do not leave up to the agencies to fill in the substantive blanks. - Consult legal experts about the impact of the laws on the legal landscape before voting. - Do not vote on the laws you do not wish to read or understand. Just write better laws that are clear in intent and expression. Do not give money away like it is growing on trees or like you do not have to earn or account for it. Just a few coming to mind.

When I first interviewed to work with West Virginia, one of my future colleagues asked: "What's the biggest issue we should be addressing?" My answer was overturning Chevron deference, which shifted power to federal agencies. It turns out the AG had been thinking the same thing for many years. When I came to the office, we filed brief after brief pushing for that result -- so much so that one State started mocking me for doing so many of them. But we could feel the wind shifting. That's why I'm so proud of our work in the recent Loper Bright case. (Here I'm shamelessly taking credit for the work of Grant Newman, who has since gone on to greener pastures.) Once and for all, the Court has put Chevron to bed. Obviously a case like that doesn't come down to one amicus brief, especially when Petitioners are already so well-represented by great counsel and when so many experts pushed for this outcome. But I do think our brief well explained why 27 States saw Chevron deference as a real problem, and I like to think it had some impact. If you'd like to join us in doing work like this, please reach out! We're planning to go back to the Supreme Court (as more than an amicus) in several cases next year. https://lnkd.in/gxjDhZkb

The Supreme Court's decision to overturn "Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council" last month scrapped a “decades-old precedent that gave federal agencies the power to interpret vague laws as they regulate businesses.” This was a major change for real estate professionals. Why exactly? It represents an opportunity for businesses to challenge legislation and regulations that are deemed unfair. According to Holland & Knight law partner Lynn Calkins, who leads the firm's new Chevron deference working group of Chevron deference cases, and who has litigated a number of Chevron deference cases, for those in the real estate industry, one example of possible impact is the way the Department of Housing and Urban Development has implemented the 1968 Fair Housing Act. According to Calkins, "It is a statute that is incredibly vague and broad, and HUD in particular, has taken a lot of liberty to establish what it views the law to be through guidance and different regulations. There's likely to be a fair amount of question if those policies continue to be viewed as the law." In addition to probable new legal challenges against HUD, this decision is just the beginning of what may be significant changes to the federal government's regulation of real estate. #RealEstate #BusinessTransformation #Regulation

The US Supreme Court just overruled Chevron. This decision will have a major impact. No longer will Courts defer to an agency's interpretation of the law. The views of bureaucrats and administrators will no longer carry the day. Let's see how this decision impacts tax cases. https://lnkd.in/em6tmkmx #chevron #chevrondeference #taxlaw

What Does the Chevron Ruling Mean for Construction? In a huge shift, the Supreme Court in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo recently overturned the long-standing Chevron doctrine. What does this mean in regard to the transportation construction industry? The implications could be significant, but far from instantaneous. American Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)breaks down what this means to our industry. Read more: https://lnkd.in/eVsTSAgi.

Key Takeaways on FTC Non-Compete Rule Although the decision in?Ryan?did not result in a nationwide injunction, it likely signals that the FTC’s non-compete rule will not survive judicial scrutiny. Absent an interlocutory appeal or a substantial change in the court’s reasoning, it appears the?Ryan?court is poised to strike down the rule prior to its scheduled effective date when it issues its ultimate decision on the merits in August. While the FTC rule is technically still alive as to parties other than the plaintiffs in?Ryan, it is on life support at best, and employers should be able to take some comfort that the rule will not survive. Regardless of the outcome of the?Ryan?litigation, the FTC’s rule is yet another reminder of the growing federal and state hostility to restrictive covenants (especially non-competes). Employers may want to take a close look at their current restrictive covenants and narrow them as much as practicable to what is actually needed to protect their legitimate business interests, including with respect to confidential information (trade secrets), goodwill in customers and employees, and unfair competition. Ogletree Deakins’?Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets Practice Group?will continue to monitor developments and will provide updates on the?Unfair Competition and Trade Secrets?blog as additional information becomes available.

The Supreme Court overturned Chevron Deference today--a decision that will have an enormous and disruptive impact on how we, as a nation, get things done. The decision will impact healthcare, education, the environment, and our financial system--these are important things. From a tax perspective, while it is Congress that makes the law, the IRS issues the regulations that help us all make sense of it. The decision could make it easier for people to challenge these regulations in the courts. In other words, tax law just got even more complicated and even less predictable. A quote from congressman Jeff Merkley used in the article below: “Getting rid of Chevron deference says, you know what? The courts will be the decider of how to interpret these laws instead of experts who are knowledgeable in the field.”

The U.S. Supreme Court has officially overruled the case of Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984), which previously required federal courts to defer to administrative interpretations of ambiguous laws. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the Court, emphasized that it is always the judiciary's job to "say what the law is" and held that "courts need not . . . defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous." This is good news for the separation of powers in our country; federal courts will retain their proper role as umpires, calling balls and strikes, without weighting the scales in favor of the party who happens to also administer the law at issue. This also is a huge win for private litigants, who are now on equal footing with government agencies when seeking to challenge the interpretation of a particular law. Both sides will still have to have to offer the best argument they can, and the court will decide who is correct--as it should be. Notably, Ohio has been a leader in this area, as the Ohio Supreme Court recently rejected administrative deference in our state courts, in the case of ?TWISM Ents., L.L.C. v. State Bd. of Registration for Professional Engineers & Surveyors, 2022-Ohio-4677. Hopefully other states will soon follow suit. #deference #administrativelaw #separationofpowers #chevron

?I have a piece of land. Am I required to clean it? According to Portuguese law, owners, tenants, usufructuaries, or anyone who holds land must take annual safety measures to reduce the risk of fires. Land must be cleared by April 30 to prepare for rising temperatures, but this year, the deadline has been extended to May 31, as stated in Article 79 of Decree-Law No. 82/2021. If landowners fail to clear their land, the municipality will notify them, and they will be required to cover the cleaning costs. If they do not pay, a tax enforcement process will be initiated to collect the dues.

Adios Chevron deference, it was nice knowing you. "Chevron cannot be reconciled with the APA by presuming that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations to agencies. That presumption does not approximate reality. A statutory ambiguity does not necessarily reflect a congressional intent that an agency, as opposed to a court, resolve the resulting interpretive question. Many or perhaps most statutory ambiguities may be unintentional. And when courts confront statutory ambiguities in cases that do not involve agency interpretations or delegations of authority, they are not somehow relieved of their obligation to independently interpret the statutes. Instead of declaring a particular party’s reading “permissible” in such a case, courts use every tool at their disposal to determine the best reading of the statute and resolve the ambiguity. But in an agency case as in any other, there is a best reading all the same—“the reading the court would have reached” if no agency were involved. Chevron, 467 U. S., at 843, n. 11. It therefore makes no sense to speak of a “permissible” interpretation that is not the one the court, after applying all relevant interpretive tools, concludes is best." (from the Syllabus) https://lnkd.in/e9miN-hv