Week in Review

IN THE NEWS

• President Donald J. Trump announced a 90 day pause on blanket reciprocal tariffs for all countries except for those against China. A blanket 10 percent tariff on imports from all countries will remain in effect during the 90 day pause, according to President Trump’s executive order, and tariffs on imports from China will increase to 125 percent. The President stated that the pause came after over 75 countries reached out to the Administration signaling they were willing to negotiate new trade deals with the United States.
• President Trump issued a memorandum directing federal agencies to review and repeal “unlawful” regulations without notice-and-comment rulemaking. According to the memo, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Loper Bright v. Raimondo and West Virginia v. EPA have overturned administrative law precedents that many existing federal rules and regulations rely upon, but those rules and regulations remain in effect. The memorandum directs agencies to repeal these rules, explaining that the “good cause” exception of the Administrative Procedure Act—which allows an agency to issue or repeal a rule without notice and comment—applies in this case.
• The U.S. Supreme Court issued an administrative stay of lower court orders requiring the Trump Administration to reinstate Cathy A. Harris to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne A. Wilcox to the National Labor Relations Board. Last month, two federal district judges found President Trump’s removal of Harris and Wilcox—both Biden appointees—to be unlawful and ordered their reinstatement. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit then paused those orders in a decision declining to stay them pending appeal, and the Trump Administration appealed to the Supreme Court, requesting a stay. Chief Justice John G. Roberts issued the order pending the Court’s full consideration of the government’s request for a stay. He ordered that responses to the government’s request be filed by early next week.
• The U.S. Supreme Court blocked two lower court orders that would have barred the federal government from deporting noncitizens designated as members of a Venezuelan gang. In an unsigned opinion, the court acknowledged that the detainees were “entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard.” The court determined, however, that such cases must be brought as habeas corpus actions in the district of confinement. In a dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor contended that the Court lacked jurisdiction to review the order and criticized the majority’s conclusion that habeas corpus is the only avenue to relief.
• The Trump Administration revoked all immigration visas held by South Sudanese passport holders. Secretary of State Marco Rubio claimed that South Sudan’s transitional government refused to accept repatriated citizens deported from the United States. The Biden Administration had previously granted South Sudanese passport holders temporary protected status in the United States as the country has undergone significant domestic turmoil and civil war in recent years. Secretary Rubio stated that the Administration is willing to revisit its decision if South Sudan begins cooperating with the Administration’s repatriation efforts.
• The U.S. Supreme Court blocked a lower court’s order requiring the Trump Administration to rehire thousands of terminated federal probationary employees. The Court, in an unsigned order, ruled that the plaintiffs in this case—nine non-profit organizations representing federal workers—lacked standing to challenge the employees’ termination. The Court noted that its ruling does not affect the claims of other plaintiffs who were not the subject of the lower court’s order. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor dissented from the ruling, arguing that the government failed to show that the preliminary injunction would cause “irreparable harm.”
• The U.S. Supreme Court temporarily paused a lower court order directing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to return Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland man whom DHS erroneously deported to El Salvador. Observers expect the case to move quickly, as the Court ordered Abrego Garcia to file a response within the next day.
• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services declined to finalize several provisions of a rule proposed during the Biden Administration. This rule is intended to make policy changes for the 2026 fiscal year. The dropped provisions include one establishing guardrails for artificial intelligence, one setting guidelines for health equity analysis, and one covering anti-obesity medications under Medicare Part D. An agency spokesperson left open the possibility of anti-obesity medications being considered in the future.

WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK

• In an article in the UC Law Environmental Journal, Steven Ferrey, a professor at Suffolk University Law School, examined the regulation of cryptocurrency mining and its environmental impacts. Ferrey argued that crypto mining’s soaring electricity consumption undermines federal climate initiatives by exacerbating greenhouse gas emissions and prolonging the use of fossil fuels. He proposed several legal strategies—including targeted electricity rates, permitting, and inventive restructuring—that lawmakers and regulators can use to reduce crypto’s environmental harm while respecting formidable constitutional restrictions.
• In a forthcoming article in the SMU Law Review, Edward W. De Barbieri, a professor at Albany Law School, analyzed the conflict between urban conservationists and rural communities that live near protected lands. Using New York’s Adirondack Park as a case study, De Barbieri noted how designating a land as protected limits the economic opportunities for local residents and can cause economic depression and conflict between urban and rural populations. De Barbieri concluded that land managers should allow local residents near protected lands to engage in a broader spectrum of economic activity that does not impact broader conservation goals—such as ecotourism—to mitigate this conflict and lessen the burden of protecting public lands on rural populations.
• In a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, Raymond Fisman, the Slater Family Professor in Behavioral Economics at Boston University, and several coauthors examined the impacts of “revolving door laws”—laws that restrict former public officials from lobbying. The Fisman team found that under these laws, incumbents decide to stay in office longer and fewer new candidates run for office because exit opportunities are constrained and less valuable. In addition, the Fisman team determined that revolving door laws have the effect of discouraging “higher-ability” and moderate candidates from running for office, while having little impact on ideologically extreme candidates, who are unlikely to have interest in lobbying. As a next step, the Fisman Team suggested that future research should focus on how revolving door laws ultimately affect policy.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

• In an essay in The Regulatory Review, David M. Driesen, a university professor at Syracuse University College of Law, critiqued recent decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concerning presidential authority over independent agencies. Driesen argued that the court’s actions, particularly those by Judge Justin R. Walker, reflect a misguided belief that any judicial restraint on the President constitutes an emergency. He contended that this perspective undermines statutes designed to protect agency independence and facilitates the executive branch’s efforts to dismantle legal protections for civil servants. Driesen warned that such judicial deference threatens the constitutional balance of powers and the rule of law.