Category Archives: Administrative Law

Changes in Approach to Criminal Liability: Trump’s Executive Order Regarding Criminal Regulatory Offenses

by Greg L. Johnson, Clare M. Bienvenu, Sean Toomey, and Colin North

Photos of the authors

Greg L. Johnson, Clare M. Bienvenu, Sean Toomey & Colin North (photos courtesy of the authors)

On May 9, 2025, the Trump Administration published an executive order (“EO”), titled “Fighting Overcriminalization in Federal Regulations,” that targets criminal regulatory offenses subject to strict liability, or liability that attaches without a required criminal mindset. The EO states that strict liability offenses are “generally disfavored,” and encourages agencies to consider civil or administrative, rather than criminal, enforcement of strict liability offenses. The EO further explains that prosecution of criminal regulatory offenses is “most appropriate” when “a putative defendant is alleged to have known his conduct was unlawful.”

Continue reading →

The Fallout from SEC v. Jarkesy: Is There a Right to a Jury Trial in Administrative Enforcement Actions Brought by NYDFS?

by Matthew L. Levine

Photo of the author

Photo courtesy of author

Legal developments emerging in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in SEC v. Jarkesy, 603 U.S. 109 (2024), present an important question for entities licensed by the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS):  in an administrative enforcement action brought by NYDFS, does Jarkesy entitle the targeted entity to a jury trial?

Continue reading →

SEC Now Requires Commission Approval for Subpoenas, but Says It Is Not ‘Walking Away’ From Enforcement

by Andrew Goldstein, Elizabeth Skey, and Bingxin Wu

Photos of the authors

Left to right: Andrew Goldstein, Elizabeth Skey and Bingxin Wu (photos courtesy of Cooley LLP)

On March 10, 2025, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted a final rule that will require a majority of the commissioners to agree before the SEC formally opens an investigation. For the past 15 years, that power had been delegated to the SEC’s director of enforcement – enabling SEC staff attorneys to issue subpoenas to companies and individuals without approval of the commission. The new rule will make it more difficult for staff to gain subpoena power, adding a bureaucratic hurdle that could slow investigations down. At the same time, however, Acting Deputy Director of the Division of Enforcement Antonia Apps has insisted publicly that the SEC is not “walking away” from enforcement, but will focus on core areas, such as fraud and deceptive market practices.

Continue reading →

New Administration Outlook: The Executive Branch, Schedule F, and Other Tools To Cabin Administrative Discretion

by Stephen Gannon, LaFonda Willis, Max Bonici, and Michael Treves

Left to right: Stephen Gannon, LaFonda Willis, Max Bonici, and Michael Treves (Photos courtesy of the authors)

The combination of judicial trends and concerted executive branch action is expected to drive significant changes in the federal bureaucracy and affect financial services regulation

We have previously analyzed the recent history of Executive Orders (“EOs”) controlling the issuance and content of regulations. As we saw on Inauguration Day 2025, and continue to see, the second Trump Administration is aggressively deploying EOs toward that end and others.

Continue reading →

Fifth Circuit Holds that OFAC May Not Maintain Sanctions on Cryptocurrency Mixer Tornado Cash

by Sharon Cohen Levin, James M. McDonald, Eric J. Kadel Jr., Anthony J. Lewis, Judson O. Littleton, Adam J. Szubin, Shari D. Leventhal, and Berke B. Gursoy

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Sharon Cohen Levin, James M. McDonald, Eric J. Kadel Jr., and Anthony J. Lewis. Bottom left to right: Judson O. Littleton, Adam J. Szubin, Shari D. Leventhal, and Berke B. Gursoy (photos courtesy of Sullivan & Cromwell)

Court Concludes that Immutable Smart Contracts Are Not “Property” Under Relevant Sanctions Legislation

SUMMARY

In a significant decision issued on November 26, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held in Van Loon et al. v. Department of the Treasury that the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) exceeded its statutory authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) by sanctioning Tornado Cash, a cryptocurrency mixing service that enables users to conduct anonymized cryptocurrency transactions through the use of immutable smart contracts. The case centered on whether these immutable smart contracts could be considered “property,” as required to be sanctionable under IEEPA. Relying on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overruled the longstanding doctrine of Chevron deference to agency interpretations of statutory text, the Fifth Circuit concluded that immutable smart contracts did not constitute property and were therefore not subject to OFAC’s designation authority under IEEPA.

This ruling has potentially significant implications for OFAC’s efforts to sanction parties involved in decentralized finance (DeFi) and could alter the future enforcement landscape for parties and platforms that provide anonymity-enhancing services to cryptocurrency users.

Continue reading →

Avoid Kicking the Hornet’s Nest: A Fresh Look at How to Anticipate, Avoid, and Respond to BIS Administrative Subpoenas (Part 2)

by Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke

Photos of authors.

Brent Carlson and Michael Huneke (photos courtesy of authors)

In Part 2 we pick up where we left off in Part 1 to continue our discussion of how best to avoid an administrative subpoena. We then discuss how best to respond, if and when they cannot be avoided, and conclude with some practical guidance.

Avoid:  How to Dissuade BIS from Resorting to Administrative Subpoenas (Continued)

Prepare well for outreach visits

Companies should prepare for outreach visits. Persons who will be meeting or speaking with OEE agents should be well prepared to do so with an eye toward and an awareness of the implications of the information and representations they are providing to BIS. Any and all information that company representatives provide to BIS representatives is fair game for future enforcement and for sharing with other U.S. agencies.

Continue reading →

The Supreme Court’s Business Docket: October Term 2023 in Review

by John F. Savarese, Kevin S. Schwartz, Noah B. Yavitz, Adam L. Goodman, and Akua Abu

Photos of the authors

Left to right: John F. Savarese, Kevin S. Schwartz, Noah B. Yavitz, Adam L. Goodman, and Akua F. Abu. (Photos courtesy of the authors)

In early July, the Supreme Court concluded its most consequential Term in years, with a flood of decisions on contentious issues ranging from abortion access to the regulation of social media companies and gun possession to presidential immunity. The Court’s business docket was no less active. While the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau narrowly survived a constitutional challenge to its funding mechanism, the Court’s conservative majority elsewhere struck body blows to the administrative state—including the long-anticipated reversal of the Chevron doctrine of judicial deference to agency interpretation of ambiguous statutes. Beyond this headline-grabbing showstopper, the Court issued a string of commercially significant decisions, affecting bankruptcy, arbitration, securities, and employment law. We summarize below the key business decisions from this Term and flag a few key cases to watch in the coming Term.

Continue reading →

State Immunity and the False Claims Act

By Joshua M. Baker

Photo of the author

Photo courtesy of the Young Law Firm.

While litigation under the False Claims Act (FCA) generally can be rather complex, bringing actions under this statute against state agencies involves the additional issue of potential immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. The inquiry as to whether a given state agency can successfully assert such immunity is nuanced and the analysis will vary depending on the jurisdiction in which the case is brought. At the most basic level, the resolution of this issue depends on how the agency is treated under state law. Specifically, courts will look at factors such as how much autonomy the agency has from the state government as such and how much of its funding comes from the state. 

Continue reading →

Supreme Court Punches SEC APs Right in the Seventh Amendment

by Andrew J. Ceresney, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Arian M. June, Robert B. Kaplan, Julie M. Riewe, Kristin A. Snyder, and Jonathan R. Tuttle

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Andrew J. Ceresney, Charu A. Chandrasekhar, Arian M. June, and Robert B. Kaplan. Bottom left to right: Julie M. Riewe, Kristin A. Snyder, and Jonathan R. Tuttle. (Photos courtesy of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP)

Recently, in a long-awaited ruling with significant implications for the securities industry and administrative agencies more generally, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Jarkesy v. SEC, holding that the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial precluded the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) from pursuing monetary penalties for securities fraud violations through in-house administrative adjudications. The key takeaways are:

  • The Court’s ruling was limited to securities fraud claims, but other SEC claims seeking legal remedies may be impacted, as well as claims by other federal agencies that may have been adjudicated in-house previously.
  • We expect that the SEC will continue its practice of bringing new enforcement actions in district court, except when a claim only is available in the administrative forum.
  • Because of the majority decision’s focus on fraud’s common-law roots, the decision raises questions about whether the SEC may bring negligence-based or strict liability claims seeking penalties administratively.
  • The Court did not resolve other constitutional questions concerning the SEC’s administrative law judges, including whether the SEC’s use of administrative proceedings violates the non-delegation doctrine and whether the SEC’s administrative law judges are unconstitutionally protected from removal in violation of Article III.
  • We anticipate additional litigation regarding these unresolved issues.

Continue reading →

CFPB “Firing On All Cylinders” After Surviving Constitutional Challenge To Funding Structure

by Nowell D. Bamberger, Elsbeth Bennett, and Andrew Khanarian

photos of the authors

From left to right: Nowell D. Bamberger, Elsbeth Bennett and Andrew Khanarian. (Photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)

The Supreme Court recently upheld the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s funding structure in a 7–2 decision that will likely pave the way for renewed regulatory activity by the agency in the near future. 

Enacted as part of the Dodd-Frank Act, the CFPB’s unique funding structure permits the agency to annually request an unspecified portion of funds from the Federal Reserve System, subject to an inflation-adjusted cap. In rejecting a constitutional challenge to this funding structure by several trade associations, the Supreme Court held in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association of America that the Appropriations Clause merely requires Congress to identify the source and purpose of federal funds, and that Congress’s one-time appropriation for the CFPB in the Dodd-Frank Act meets that minimal constitutional standard. The seven-member majority largely aligned in their reasoning that the Constitution’s text and history, as well as early congressional practice, endorsed funding mechanisms such as this one, and thus provided broad legal support for the fiscal independence of agencies that are delegated substantial powers. As a practical matter, this decision will likely jumpstart long-delayed regulatory and enforcement work at the CFPB, including the vacated payday lending rules that were the subject of this litigation.

Continue reading →