In with the New: Trump Freezes Pending and Non-Issued Obama-Era Regulations
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.23.17
On January 20, 2017, President Trump's Chief of Staff Reince Priebus issued a memorandum to the heads of the executive departments and agencies calling for a regulatory freeze pending review – a practice that is relatively routine for new incoming presidential administrations. Specifically, the memorandum prohibits agencies from sending any regulation to the Office of Federal Register (OFR) prior to review and approval; requires agencies to immediately withdraw unpublished regulations for review and approval; and mandates that agencies temporarily postpone the implementation of published, but not yet effective, regulations for 60 days. Regulations subject to statutory or judicial deadlines are excluded from the aforementioned actions, but agencies must timely identify them to the OMB Director. Agencies also may identify regulations they believe should not be subject to the aforementioned procedures, namely those affecting "critical health, safety, financial, or national security matters, or for some other reason."
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
