Transparency rules for US private funds lapse after SEC allows deadline to pass
This is a major loss for the SEC in the courts. If they want transparency for private equity and hedge funds, it’s going to have to come in the form of clear legislation.
‘Contentious US transparency rules for private equity and hedge funds will be wiped off the books after the Securities and Exchange Commission did not ask for reconsideration of a court decision striking them down.’
Judge Refuses to Block F.T.C.’s Noncompete Ban as Lawsuits Play Out
This ruling contradicts the preliminary injunction against the FTC granted in Northern Texas. It looks like we’ll get more clarity at the Supreme Court.
‘A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Tuesday declined to block the Federal Trade Commission’s ban on noncompete agreements, diverging from another judge’s recent finding that the agency’s move was on shaky legal ground.
‘The decision clears one obstacle to the F.T.C.’s move to prohibit virtually all noncompete agreements, which prohibit employees from switching jobs within an industry and affect roughly one in five American workers. The rule is set to take effect on Sept. 4.’
Transportation Department to Investigate Delta After Flight Delays
Delta is in this position because they complied with other regulations that mandated using a solution like Crowdstrike. There’s a reason why so many of the parties affected by the Crowdstrike outage are in heavily regulated industries like finance and transportation.
‘Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said on Tuesday that his department had opened an investigation into Delta Air Lines after the tech outage last week disrupted flights worldwide, and the agency wanted to hear from travelers who said that the airline had not complied with passenger protection requirements.
‘The aim of the investigation is to “ensure the airline is following the law and taking care of its passengers during continued widespread disruptions,” Mr. Buttigieg said in a statement.’
The Overreaching Power of the Bureaucracy Is Destroying Our Representative Government
It’s all fun and games until the courts tell the Executive Branch they need to adhere to clear instructions from Congress.
‘The modern administrative state has been a serious problem long before the Biden administration, though. It has undermined our republican form of government with executive branch bureaucrats often serving as the prime decision-makers rather than our elected representatives. Early 20th-century progressive leaders like President Woodrow Wilson who helped assemble the administrative state were bent on advancing executive branch expertise and power. In fact, Wilson himself had a shocking disdain for voters and specific groups of citizens.’
Bureaucracy layers oversight and control, perhaps too much so. Can Germany take the leap to more of a trust-based approach?
‘‘To strengthen the planned reduction in bureaucracy in the next years, the IfM reseachers believe that a paradigm shift is necessary – moving away from traditional oversight and control purposes and towards a trust-based approach. "The steps planned by the Federal Government in the Growth Initiative are moving in the right direction. In the medium term, however, bureaucracy should be redesigned to promote and stimulate entrepreneurship and innovation for the benefit of society and the overall economy. For example, if it is conceived in the sense of 'Regulation as a Service' like in the UK new conditions will automatically emerge that enable greater competitiveness and innovation. At the same time, this approach can help counteract the shortage of skilled workers: The fewer personnel resources needed for fulfilling statistical and reporting obligations, the more will be available for actual business operations," adds IfM project leader Dr. Annette Icks who works on the issue of bureaucracy since years.’
Commentary: Biden's plan to 'Trump-proof' government undermines democratic process
Can “the science” be used to block change?
‘This battle has gone public thanks to an administration initiative known as “Trump proofing” — changing bureaucratic rules to try to keep an incoming Republican president from reversing policies put in place by his Democratic predecessor.
‘Biden administration officials are invoking the premise of “scientific integrity” as they impose bureaucratic roadblocks to oversight by elected officials and their appointees. The White House tapped longtime National Institutes of Health administrator Dr. Lyric Jorgenson as its designated scientific integrity officer.’
The D.C. Circuit and the Biden Power Plant Rule
We’re going to see an expedited test of the major questions doctrine at the Supreme Court soon. Interesting to see Neomi Rao ruling against the stay.
‘On Friday, the D.C. Circuit issued a two-page opinion refusing to stay a regulation. The D.C. Circuit frequently denies stays, but this ruling was notable for three reasons: It allows an important climate change regulation to go into effect; it clarifies an important legal doctrine; and it has a good chance of being upheld on appeal – even though the Supreme Court overturned a previous regulation on the same subject.’
The Unexpected Robustness of American AI Regulation
There is regulation of AI. It’s intended to preserve American leadership.
‘Given the breadth and effect of these investments, it is a mistake to think that the federal government takes just a laissez faire approach in any straightforward sense. To the contrary, the U.S. government is a vigorous supporter of rapid development and also deployment of new AI tools. Its policies are based on an assumption that the dominance of American companies in this field, and the presence of manufacturing and scientific facilities in the homeland as opposed to elsewhere, advance the national interests of the United States. The natural and inevitable effect of these large government investments is not just to accelerate innovation and diffusion, but to ensure a very particular kind of market structure—one that is dominated by American firms and that is hence amenable to the exercise of American regulatory powers in ways that conduce to American foreign policy goals. In my judgment, then, it is a mistake to overlook these measures: They crucially condition the manner in which AI develops and gets deployed. They demonstrate that what looks like a ‘free’ market is, in fact, one that depends upon and is crucially shaped by government choices.’
The Future of Environmental Regulation after the Supreme Court Decisions in Loper Bright and Corner Post
Skidmore may allow the agencies to continue to exert tremendous influence over rule-making. Respect may not be as great as deference, but it can be significant.
‘The Court, however, left a small opening for courts to give weight to agency interpretations of the laws that they administer. Reaching back to the New Deal era, Justice Roberts quoted Skidmore v. Swift & Co., in which the Court explained that courts could look for guidance to agency “interpretations and opinions” “based upon . . . specialized experience,” even on legal questions.6 These interpretations, however, only have the power to persuade – not control, and their persuasive weight would depend on a number of factors, including the thoroughness evident in the agency’s analysis, the validity of its reasoning, and the consistency of the analysis throughout time.7’
A Kamala Harris Presidency Could Mean More of the Same on A.I. Regulation
More of the same in AI regulation in a Harris administration?
‘Now, as the Democratic Party’s presumptive presidential nominee, a win for Ms. Harris could mean a continued relatively smooth runway for A.I. companies, which have enjoyed little U.S. regulation and the chance to shape White House and Congressional views on the technology.’