PODCAST: Common Misperceptions About Undoing a Prior Administration's Executive Actions — C&M's First 100 Days Series
Client Alert | 1 min read | 12.12.16
In the latest podcast for Crowell & Moring’s “First 100 Days” series, Dan Wolff, chair of the firm’s Administrative Law & Regulatory Practice, and Tom Lorenzen, partner in the firm’s Environment & Natural Resources Group and former assistant chief with the DOJ’s Environment & Natural Resources Division, sit down with Jim Flood, chair of Crowell & Moring’s Government Affairs Group, to discuss the possibility of President-elect Trump’s administration repealing, replacing, or eliminating prior executive actions, regulatory actions, or other policies.
Common misperceptions that will be addressed in this 15 minute podcast:
- A new president can easily strike all the regulations he or she does not like on day one.
- Regulations promulgated pursuant to Executive Orders can be erased simply by revoking the Executive Order.
- Congress can simply eliminate regulations under the Congressional Review Act and the new administration can start on a blank slate.
- Regulations at various stages of finalization can easily be discarded.
Click below to listen or access from one of these links:
PodBean | SoundCloud | iTunes
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
