Insights

On July 24, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled “Saving College Sports” (the “Order”). The White House also released an accompanying Fact Sheet regarding the Order.

Over the past several months, Missouri and Florida have gone on the offensive against the nation’s largest proxy advisors related to what they deemed “radical” agendas in providing proxy advice. In Texas, two of the largest proxy advisors, Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass, Lewis & Co., LLC (“Glass Lewis”), punched first, filing separate complaints in federal court against Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in his official capacity, challenging the facial and as applied constitutionality of Senate Bill 2337 (“S.B. 2337” or “the Act”). The Act would require all proxy advisory services to disclose advice or recommendations that are “not provided solely in the financial interest of the shareholders of a company.” Advice and/or a recommendation is defined as being “for nonfinancial reasons” when it “is wholly or partly based on, or otherwise takes into account, one or more nonfinancial factors” including “an environmental, social, or governance (ESG) goal,” “diversity, equity, or inclusion (DEI)”, or “a social credit or sustainability factor or score.” Both Glass Lewis and ISS seek declaratory and injunctive relief enjoining the enforcement of S.B. 2337 as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, they allege the Act violates the First Amendment’s prohibition against viewpoint discrimination, infringes upon their freedom of association, and is unconstitutionally vague. Glass Lewis also argues that the Act violates the Dormant Commerce Clause, and that it is preempted by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

On July 11, 2025, the Department of Education issued a new interpretive rule entitled “Clarification of Federal Public Benefits under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.” The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) generally limits “eligibility for ‘federal public benefits’ to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and certain categories of qualified aliens.” The Department concluded that certain postsecondary education programs, “including adult education programs authorized under Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, [and] postsecondary career and technical education programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006,” constitute “Federal public benefits under the PRWORA and thus are subject to PRWORA’s citizenship verification requirements.”

On June 25, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced the agenda for its July 9, 2025 Workshop exploring the characterization of gender-affirming health care as involving consumer deception or unfair trade practices. Health care providers, plans, and related businesses should anticipate that investigations and lawsuits related to gender-affirming care will follow under federal unfair competition law and, perhaps first, under state unfair trade practices laws.

On June 6, 2025, Judge Claudia Wilken issued final judgment in the In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.), approving the Fourth Amended Settlement Agreement commonly known as the “House Settlement.” The House Settlement drastically changes how Division I athletes are compensated, and will likely have far-reaching implications for higher education NCAA-member institutions and student-athletes.

On May 22, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission (the “U.S. Antitrust Agencies”) filed a Statement of Interest supporting thirteen states’ claims that asset managers violated antitrust and consumer protection law through their environmental, social, and governance (“ESG”) activities. The Statement, which opposes the asset managers’ motion to dismiss the antitrust claims, indicates the federal antitrust agencies support antitrust theories favored by anti-ESG activists, which may lead to federal investigations and lawsuits based on such theories.

The Fifth Circuit vacated the FTC’s Combatting Auto Retail Scams (CARS) Rule in January of this year, finding that the FTC failed to follow the correct administrative procedures when it promulgated the regulation.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) enforcement has been fairly predictable for many years as the Fraud Section of the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) has maintained exclusive authority over investigating claims and bringing enforcement actions in federal courts across the country. President Trump’s recent pause on FCPA enforcement, the first of its kind since the statute was passed in 1977, has created significant uncertainty for individuals and businesses operating internationally regarding the future of FCPA enforcement. While DOJ is in the process of assessing what the future of FCPA enforcement, state attorneys general are stepping in. On April 2, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a Legal Advisory (the “Advisory”) to California businesses explaining that violations of the FCPA are actionable under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The announcement signals a shift in FCPA enforcement where states may take the lead and pursue FCPA enforcement through their state unfair competition laws.

The settlement approval hearing in In re College Athlete NIL Litigation, No. 4:20-cv-03919 (N.D. Cal.) is set for April 7, 2025. Commonly known as the “House Settlement,” the pending resolution between plaintiffs and the NCAA, if approved by Judge Claudia Wilken, could have far-reaching implications for higher education NCAA-member institutions and student-athletes.

On March 20, 2025, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced an investigation into whether two leading proxy advisors’ advice involving the consideration of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) constitutes deceptive or unfair trade practices under Florida law or a violation of Florida antitrust law.

On February 14th, 2025, the Department of Education (the “Department”) issued a Dear Colleague letter (the “Letter” or “DCL”) addressing what the Department thinks may constitute unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, and other authorities. The Department also announced that it will begin “vigorously enforce[ing] the law” and assessing compliance no later than February 28th, and threatens that educational institutions that fail to comply with the Department’s new view of the federal nondiscrimination laws face investigation and loss of federal funding.

On February 13, 2025, a coalition of sixteen state attorneys general issued a “Multi-State Guidance Concerning Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility Employment Initiatives” (the Guidance). Led by Attorney General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts and Attorney General Kwame Raoul of Illinois, and joined by the Attorneys General of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, the Guidance is a direct response to concerns from the private sector in the aftermath of President Trump’s recent Executive Order 14173, which  directed federal agencies “to encourage the private sector to end illegal discrimination and preferences, including DEI.” The Guidance clarifies “the state of the law for businesses, nonprofits, and other organizations operating” in their respective states.

There has been a lot of talk about diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) lately, largely due to two recent Executive Orders (EO 14151 and EO 14173) (collectively referred to as “the EOs”) signed by President Trump during his first days in office and subsequent implementing memos issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Justice Department. The EOs aim first to dismantle DEI “mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government.” Specifically, the EOs task the Director of the OPM with reviewing and revising all federal employment practices, union contracts, and trainings to ensure elimination of all DEI and related programs. They next direct federal agencies to combat private sector DEI through civil compliance investigations, to terminate equity-related initiatives, programs, grants, or contracts, and to require certifications (with potential False Claims Act liability if the certifications are not valid) that the contractor or grantee “does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable federal anti-discrimination laws.”  These EOs are discussed in detail in our prior Alert.

Artificial intelligence is now a mainstay in our daily lives. It’s in our phones and computers. It helps us draft emails and learn math. It recommends purchases and guides our online searches. It’s everywhere—and every sign suggests that it’s here to stay.

Democratic State Attorneys General took a series of actions to defend Biden Administration Rules on the environment, firearms, and immigration, in the final days before President Trump returned to the White House. While these State AGs argue that the rules at issue protect the public health and safety of their constituents and the nation, the incoming Administration has indicated that it may withdraw its support from some or all of these regulations. Notably, many of the Rules in question face legal challenges from Republican State Attorneys General. A look at the Democratic AGs’ actions is below.

Ten states held elections for state attorney general last month. Those states include: Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia. Of the ten elections, there was only one change in political party—Pennsylvania, from Democrat to Republican. Additionally, six states elected new attorneys general—North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, Washington and West Virginia. Notably, three attorneys general were elected governor of their respective states. Those incoming governors include Josh Stein of North Carolina, Bob Ferguson of Washington, and Patrick Morrisey of West Virginia. A summary of each new attorney general and attorney general turned governor is below, listed alphabetically.

On November 27, 2024, a group of eleven state attorneys general (the “AGs”) sued three of the world’s largest asset managers (the “Asset Managers”), accusing them of anticompetitive stock acquisitions, deceptive asset management practices, and an antitrust conspiracy to restrict coal output. The states seek declaratory and injunctive relief including divestitures, as well as fines under state laws, although the allegations could provide a basis for follow-on private treble damages claims under the antitrust laws.

On October 3, 2024, a group of twenty-two state attorneys general sent a letter to Nasdaq Chair Adena Friedman inquiring into the listing company’s “commitment to ensuring federal and State anti-discrimination laws are followed.”[1] The letter, penned by Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, stems from a rule change Nasdaq promulgated in 2020 in an effort to increase diversity within boardrooms.

Plastic pollution is a growing concern worldwide, and State Attorneys General increasingly turn to litigation to address this issue. These lawsuits tend to focus on alleged deceptive advertising and misleading statements, but sometimes include public nuisance claims to address alleged injuries to the environment and public health. Broadly, the actions of State Attorneys General target companies directly for the products they sell and the claims they make to sell them, de-emphasizing consumer choice as a driver of these harms.

California Governor Gavin Newsom announced his plans to sign Senate Bill 1037, a bill designed in response to the “statewide housing shortage crisis” that will give Attorney General Rob Bonta new civil penalty authority to hold municipalities accountable from the moment they purportedly first violate the state’s housing laws. This marks a significant change in the law.