Insights

Washington – August 20, 2026: The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 57 of the firm's attorneys in its 2027 edition, a testament to the firm's deep bench of legal talent across practices and offices nationwide. In addition, 29 attorneys have been named to the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® list, recognizing outstanding attorneys earlier in their careers. 

Washington – June 4, 2026: Crowell & Moring earned 92 individual rankings for 81 attorneys, as well as 48 national and statewide practice area rankings, in the Chambers USA 2026 guide. The Chambers guide ranks the country’s top law firms and lawyers through in-depth research, client interviews, and feedback from attorneys at peer firms. 

Washington – November 5, 2025: Crowell & Moring ranked nationally in 20 practice areas in the 2026 edition of Best Lawyers "Best Law Firms." In addition, the firm was ranked in 38 metropolitan categories. 

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.

On Friday, June 28, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (“Chevron”)[1] in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (No. 22-451) and Relentless v. Dep’t of Commerce (No. 22–1219)[2] (the two cases collectively referred to as “Loper Bright”), bringing an official end to the decades-old and eponymously named “Chevron deference” doctrine. Not content to stop there, the Court returned fresh to work Monday, July 1, to, in Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (No. 22-451)[3] (“Corner Post”), effectively extend the limitations period to challenge final agency actions under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).

On Friday, April 14, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, holding that constitutional challenges to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can be heard in federal district court in the first instance, without the plaintiffs first having to exhaust those arguments through the agencies’ respective administrative enforcement processes. The Court did not address the underlying constitutional challenges, but the long-awaited decision on the jurisdictional question is likely to encourage more constitutional challenges to those and other agencies’ enforcement schemes being raised and heard first in the federal courts.

As companies consider taking class actions to trial, a blockbuster decision from the U.S. Supreme Court instructing lower courts not to defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of the statutes Congress charged them with administering may prove useful. Companies should also be aware of a second decision holding agencies’ use of in-house judges to mete out civil penalties to be unconstitutional.

The EBA Environmental Regulation Committee presents an all-star panel that will discuss the Clean Power Plan (CPP), including the proposed CPP repeal, the potential replacement options, the role of states and NGOs in the CPP debate, and how the outcome of the CPP proceedings might affect the future of energy and environmental policy in our nation.

As the federal government steps back from aggressive environmental regulation and combating climate change, what are the implications for New York-area businesses? Join senior business leaders for a private roundtable on how:

Tax Executives Institute is the preeminent association of in-house tax professionals worldwide​. Members are business executives who are responsible for taxation matters on an administrative or policy-making level, or whose work is otherwise primarily concerned with the challenges of business taxation. TEI members are accountants, lawyers, and other corporate and business employees who are responsible for the tax affairs of their employers in an executive, administrative, or managerial capacity.

The difference between a legislative rule, i.e., a rule that creates binding obligations with legal consequences for non-compliance, and an interpretative rule, i.e., a rule that interprets but does not itself legislate, is an important one. Among other things, agencies must typically give public notice of the former and allow the public an opportunity to comment before issuing them in the final form; not so of the latter. But in application the distinction is sometimes difficult to discern, especially where an agency issues "guidance" that it portrays as "interpretative" of existing authority but which, practically speaking, creates new binding norms. So-called "policy statements" sometimes give rise to the same mischief. This D.C. Bar program will address this topic and the not-entirely-consistent federal jurisprudence surrounding it.

On January 30, President Trump – acting on a campaign pledge – issued an Executive Order directing that for every new regulation issued by his Administration, the issuing agency will be required to repeal two other regulations (EO 13771, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs”). The White House Office of Management and Budget followed up soon after with guidance on how the 2-for-1 EO will be implemented for the remainder of fiscal year 2017. But the big question on everyone’s mind remains: how will the Trump Administration ever be able to pull this off? This webinar will examine the 2-for-1 EO and offer commentary on how agencies might go about trying to comply.

Continuing to focus on the Trump Administration tariffs, in this session, Crowell hosts Nicole Simonian and Dj Wolff, Co-Chairs of the International Trade Group, talk with Daniel Wolff, Crowell’s Litigation and Trial partner, as they review and consider the impact of the Court of International Trade's recent decision on the tariffs imposed pursuant to the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Global Trade Talks is a podcast that shares brief perspectives on key global issues on international trade, current events, business, law, and public policy as they impact our lives.