Insights

Chambers Ranks Crowell & Moring International Trade Practice and Lawyers in 2026 Global Guide

On March 3, 2026, the Department of Labor (DOL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Department of the Treasury (TREAS) — collectively, the “Tri-Agencies” — published their fourth annual report to Congress on enforcement of the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA). The 2025 Report demonstrates a shift in approach by the Tri-Agencies in its tone and content and suggests that federal regulators, and the DOL in particular, are not as active as they previously were in MHPAEA enforcement. However, federal enforcement remains ongoing, and state enforcement of mental health parity laws continues to grow. Plans and issuers must continue to maintain comprehensive compliance processes and documentation for MHPAEA compliance.

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has proposed another revision to independent contractor regulations, one that would provide for more leeway in classifying workers as contractors. DOL’s proposed rule, published on February 26, 2026, would rescind the Biden DOL’s March 2024 independent contractor regulation and reinstate a framework substantially tracking the prior Trump rule of January 2021. The proposed rule would also apply the narrower analysis to worker classifications under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (MSPA). The comment period closes in late April 2026; until then, the 2024 rule remains in effect for purposes of private litigation.

A recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Farmers Texas County Mutual Insurance Co. v. 1st Choice Accident & Injury, LLC, No. 24-20275 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 2026), offers important lessons for health care payors and other potential plaintiffs considering civil claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Although the Fifth Circuit’s decision focused on a procedural issue, the underlying case turned on a fundamental pleading failure: the plaintiff insurers did not adequately describe the fraudulent network they were suing as a RICO “enterprise.” The result was dismissal of a $14 million fraud case.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held, in an issue of first impression for that court, that the Ending Forced Arbitration of Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment Act of 2021 (EFAA) renders an employer’s pre-dispute arbitration agreement unenforceable as to a plaintiff's entire lawsuit, whenever the lawsuit includes a viable sexual harassment claim.

Clinical trial sponsors and all other stakeholders involved in conducting commercial clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (IMP) in the UK.

Ex parte reexamination is seeing a resurgence in popularity as a cost-effective means to challenge a patent’s validity and should be part of your patent strategy. An ex parte reexamination is a proceeding in which any party — including a patent owner or an anonymous third party — may submit prior art to request that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reassess an issued patent's validity. Once overshadowed by the introduction of inter partes review (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) following the enactment of the America Invents Act in 2012, ex parte reexamination is now experiencing a significant resurgence as a strategic alternative to both proceedings. This client alert explains what is driving ex parte reexamination’s resurgence and what it means for your patent strategy.

On February 17, 2026, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a complaint against Coca-Cola Beverages Northeast, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, alleging that the company violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) by conducting an event limited to female employees. The EEOC’s lawsuit is one of several recent actions from the EEOC in furtherance of its efforts to end what it refers to as “unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination.” See EEOC and Justice Department Warn Against Unlawful DEI-Related Discrimination | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s February 20, 2026, opinion in Learning Resources. v. Trump (decided with Trump v. V.O.S. Selections), holding that the President lacks authority to impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), is notable for many reasons — including its practical impact on the many U.S. companies who paid steep tariffs on global imports and may now be able to recover by filing suit before the Court of International Trade (CIT). That possibility and the key reasons for the High Court’s decision are discussed in our recent alert on this momentous decision.

The New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) entitles eligible employees to up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave per 24-month period for bonding with a new child, caring for a seriously ill family member, or responding to certain public health emergencies. The law covers employers with 30 or more employees worldwide, and employees must have at least one year on the job and 1,000 hours worked in the preceding 12 months to qualify. Unlike the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), the NJFLA does not cover an employee’s own serious health condition, but instead pairs with New Jersey’s Temporary Disability Insurance (TDI) and Family Leave Insurance (FLI) programs, which provide partial wage replacement — funded through employee payroll contributions — when employees are out on qualifying leave. 

On February 19, 2026, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued Branch Street Solar Partners, LLC et al., 194 FERC ¶ 61,124 (2026) rejecting the refund reports filed in connection with the late filing of recertifications of qualifying facility (QF) status by certain affiliated companies to reflect a change in upstream ownership. FERC’s rearticulation of QF recertification timing requirements and consequences for late QF recertifications has broad and substantial implications for all QF owners. 

Because effective Directors & Officers insurance (D&O) is becoming even more important for companies and their leaders, particularly for peace of mind and financial soundness in our highly litigious society, we provide this coverage alert.  

The year 2026 marks a major regulatory turning point for European companies using or considering the use of artificial intelligence in their human resources (HR) processes. The Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 on artificial intelligence (the AI Act) is entering a critical implementation phase, while the European Commission's "Digital Omnibus" package will clarify several obligations and modify certain deadlines.

On February 20, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Ohio Attorney General (Ohio AG) sued OhioHealth Corporation (OhioHealth), alleging that OhioHealth had unlawfully restrained trade in the market for general acute care inpatient hospital services in the Columbus metropolitan statistical area and the narrower Central Columbus area, respectively. The DOJ and Ohio AG allege violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, as well as the Valentine Act (Ohio’s antitrust statute), claiming that OhioHealth leveraged its market power to impose contractual restrictions that blocked payors from working with competing health systems to design “budget-conscious” lower-cost health plans.

From 1 April 2026, a major new transparency requirement under the Procurement Act 2023 will take effect pursuant to the Procurement Act 2023 (Commencement No. 4) Regulations 2025.

On February 10, 2026, California enacted Senate Bill 25 (“SB 25”), known as the California Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act. The new law takes effect on January 1, 2027, making California the third state—following Washington (effective July 27, 2025) and Colorado (effective August 6, 2025)—to implement a “mini-HSR” regime modeled after the Uniform Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act (“UAPNA”). The legislation reflects the growing state-level focus on merger oversight, and it signals California’s continuing intent to increase early pre-merger scrutiny and concurrent review of transactions with federal authorities.

While state attorneys general have traditionally led consumer protection enforcement, local governments are increasingly deploying their own powers to prosecute high-stakes affirmative litigation. The results speak for themselves: Los Angeles and Chicago have secured multi-million-dollar judgments and settlements in consumer deception cases over the past decade.

The Supreme Court has concluded that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize President Trump to impose tariffs.  For a detailed analysis of the decision, please see our Trade Group’s full alert.

The UK’s Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation (OFSI) has launched a call for evidence concerning the "ownership and control" test within UK financial sanctions. The call for evidence, running until 11:59 p.m. on 13 April 2026, seeks stakeholder views on the challenges and implementation of the "control" limb, with particular focus on its hypothetical element.

On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, negating the President’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The case stemmed from President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries, citing national emergencies. Challengers argued—and the Court agreed—that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President. The power to tariff is vested in Congress by the Constitution and cannot be delegated to the President absent express authority from Congress.