Week in Review

IN THE NEWS

• The U.S. Supreme Court rejected an emergency appeal by Oklahoma requesting to reinstate $4.5 million in federal funding for family planning services that the Biden Administration revoked. Oklahoma’s state abortion ban conflicted with regulations under Title X, a family planning program requiring funding recipients to provide information about abortion upon clinic patients’ request. Oklahoma refused to meet this requirement, arguing that its abortion ban deems it a crime “to advise or procure an abortion for any woman.” The Biden Administration offered to accommodate Oklahoma’s ban by allowing it to make referrals to a national abortion hotline, but Oklahoma declined, resulting in the Biden Administration cutting off Oklahoma’s Title X funds. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the decision to cut off Oklahoma’s funds does not violate federal law.
• The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico ruled that prosecutors and election regulators in New Mexico discriminated against a Republican-funded group, the Voter Reference Foundation, by refusing it access to voter registration information. The Voter Reference Foundation seeks to build a free database of registered voters’ information​​—including street addresses, party affiliations, and recent election participation—to assist individuals and other groups in identifying potential voter fraud. Election officials across states have expressed concern about such groups attempting to gain access to voter rolls, arguing the lists could be used to intimidate voters. U.S. District Judge James Browning stated that preventing the Voter Reference Foundation from accessing voter data constituted discrimination and a violation of free speech.
• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ordered the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California to enter a preliminary injunction against provisions of a California law that require large social media companies to disclose publicly their content moderation and hate speech policies. The plaintiff, X—formerly known as Twitter—, argued that the law violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment by compelling companies to disclose sensitive internal decisions. The Ninth Circuit determined that provisions of the California law “likely compel non-commercial speech,” and, therefore, they are subject to the highest level of scrutiny “under which they do not survive.” In a post on its website, X described the ruling as “not just a victory for our platform, but also for free speech nationwide.”
• Seven states filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education, challenging the Biden Administration’s revised student debt relief plan. The seven states, all led by Republican governors, alleged that the Education Department started implementing the provisions of its April 2024 proposed rule by “quietly” instructing “third-party organizations that service federal loans to begin canceling hundreds of billions of dollars beginning potentially this week.” The states requested an immediate temporary restraining order against enforcement of rule. This lawsuit comes in the wake of last week’s U.S. Supreme Court order rejecting the Biden Administration’s request to vacate an injunction preventing a different student debt relief plan from taking effect.
• The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is adopting a new airworthiness directive for certain models of Airbus planes. Airbus is the second largest aircraft producer behind Boeing, which has been facing public struggles with safety concerns. The directive addresses incorrect instructions in the aircraft maintenance manual, which states that oxygen instead of nitrogen should be used in a pressure test. This incorrect instruction could lead to uncontrolled fires on aircraft during maintenance testing.
• The U.S. Department of Justice’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has published a notice increasing the production limit of the ADHD medication Vyvanse and its generic versions by approximately 24 percent to address the drug’s ongoing shortage. There has been a spike in demand for Takeda Pharmaceutical’s Vyvanse since Israel’s invasion of Gaza, triggering manufacturing delays of Adderall, which is produced by Israel-based Teva Pharmaceutical Industries. The DEA production limit for Vyvanse has been increased to “ensure that the United States has an adequate and uninterrupted supply of lisdexamfetamine to meet legitimate patient needs both domestically and globally.”
• The U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board proposed a rule to amend its guidelines surrounding the accessibility of electric vehicle charging stations that are covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as those owned or managed by the federal government. The proposed rule aims to make electric vehicle charging stations more usable for people with disabilities by ensuring there are a minimum number of accessible spaces at each station, accessible routes to enter the stations, mobility features of electric vehicle chargers, operable parts, and appropriate signage and communication on the stations’ features.
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued a final rule to push back the amended Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) reporting and recordkeeping requirements for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). EPA had previously issued a rule that would have required entities that have manufactured or imported PFAS or PFAS containing materials between 2011 and 2022 to submit detailed reports to EPA about the prevalence of the substances from November 12, 2024 to July 11, 2025. EPA is pushing that submission period back to from July 11, 2025 to January 11, 2026. EPA stated that this change is due to the agency’s needing more time to prepare the software and allocate resources necessary to accept, process, and disseminate the amount of data and information expected to come in through the reporting requirements.

WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK

• In a note published in the Yale Journal on Regulation, Layla Z. Malamut, a former student at Yale Law School, examined the privatization of public spaces throughout the United States caused by the advent of pandemic-era outdoor dining structures. Malamut argued that these “streateries,” which were initially authorized by state and local governments as temporary solutions, have permanently altered public spaces, giving private businesses control over once-public streets. She contended that these changes diminish the accessibility, democratic engagement, and community-building functions of public spaces. To address these issues, Malamut proposed a “publicization” approach where state and local governments require restaurants to provide public benefits, such as shared uses and aesthetic enhancements, to combat the detriments of the privatization of city streets.
• In an upcoming working paper, Aziz Z. Huq, Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School, assessed the regulation of digital technologies through three books focused on the subject. After assessing each of the books’ depictions of technology regulation in the United States, Europe, and China, Huq concluded that digital technology regulation is closely connected to strategic and military goals for nations. Therefore, Huq argued, technology policy cannot be separated from several other domains of geopolitical confrontation, emphasizing the interconnectedness of technology policy and greater international relationships.
• In a recent working paper released by the National Bureau of Economic Research, David Neumark, Distinguished Professor of Economics at the University of California, Irvine, and Zeyu Li, a PhD candidate in Economics at the University of California, Irvine, analyzed California’s Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program to determine its effects on employment. Neumark and Li noted that California’s EITC program does not have a positive effect on the employment of “lower-skilled single mothers” as many other states’ EITC programs do. Neumark and Li attributed the lack of positive employment effects to California’s high minimum wage and its unique federal EITC supplement structure, which targets the highest benefits toward the lowest earners. The result is that employees “who work more than a relatively low number of hours are unlikely to gain any extra income because of the EITC,” according to Neumark and Li. They concluded that offering a smaller federal EITC supplement could have greater impacts on employment for single “low-skilled” mothers.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

• In an essay in The Regulatory Review, Timothy D. Lytton, Regents’ Professor and Professor of Law at Georgia State University College of Law, explored the challenges regulators face in addressing agricultural water contamination and its link to foodborne illnesses. Lytton discussed how the Food and Drug Administration has encountered difficulty creating “science-based minimum standards” for agricultural water quality in accordance with the Food Safety Modernization Act because scientists “have yet to develop reliable methods” for determining those quality standards. Lytton argued that regulators should seek other “innovative” solutions in the short-term, such as mandating that food processors to implement pathogen-killing techniques post-harvest, or requiring farmers to vaccinate their cattle herds, which are a major source of E. coli pathogens on farms. In the long term, Lytton suggested “prioritizing measures that generate new policy-relevant information,” with the goal of finally gathering the scientific evidence needed to set water quality standards.