Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Chevron Doctrine No More: What the Supreme Court’s Ruling Means for Agency Authority

Client Alert

On June 28, 2024, the Supreme Court invalidated the Chevron doctrine, nearly 40 years after it first took effect.

The Chevron doctrine is a longstanding standard for decision-making that required Federal courts to defer to reasonable agency decisions where Federal law is silent or unclear. Though it historically garnered little attention, the doctrine had powerful practical effect, as it provided Federal agencies the power to publish necessary administrative rules interpreting vague or unclear Federal laws passed by Congress, essentially filling in the gaps left by Federal law. For areas of complicated Federal law like health care that require detailed knowledge and expertise, the ability of the pertinent regulatory agency to expound on Federal law served to facilitate the operations of Federal programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

In his majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts supported the end of Chevron based on its “misguided” presumption that federal agencies have competence to resolve statutory ambiguities. That competence rests with the Federal court system, not Federal agencies, according to Chief Justice Roberts.

Following the fall of Chevron, courts will not have to accept agency expertise in their review of challenged regulations, shifting from Federal agency expertise to generalist courts’ interpretations of Federal law.

In short, Friday’s ruling will likely impede the ability of Federal agencies to implement laws passed by Congress. Though agencies’ regulations will still have the force and effect of law, there will be a new incentive to challenge these rules in a court that will not have to afford deference to agency expertise where statutes are not clear. Overturning Federal regulations will result in barriers to implementing Federal programs.

For questions regarding how this decision could impact your business, please contact BMD Member Daphne Kackloudis at dlkackloudis@bmdllc.com or Attorney Jordan Burdick at jaburdick@bmdllc.com.


January 2025 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Brings Notable Changes to HIPAA Security Rule

In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services proposed amendments to the HIPAA Security Rule, aiming to enhance cybersecurity for covered entities (CEs) and business associates (BAs). Key changes include mandatory compliance audits, workforce training, vulnerability scans, and risk assessments. Comments on the proposed rule are due by March 7, 2025.

Corporate Transparency Act Effective Again

The federal judiciary has issued multiple rulings on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which took effect on January 1, 2024. Previously, enforcement was halted nationwide due to litigation in Smith v. U.S. Department of the Treasury. However, on February 18th, the court lifted the stay, reinstating the CTA’s reporting requirements. Non-exempt entities now have until March 21, 2025, to comply. Businesses should act promptly to avoid civil penalties of $591 per day and potential criminal liability.

Status Update: Physician Noncompete Agreements in Ohio

Noncompete agreements remain enforceable in Ohio if they meet specific legal requirements. While the AMA and FTC have challenged these restrictions, courts continue to uphold reasonable noncompete provisions for physicians. Recent cases, like MetroHealth System v. Khandelwal, highlight how courts may modify overly restrictive agreements to balance employer interests with patient care. With ongoing legal challenges to the FTC’s proposed ban, Ohio physicians should consult a healthcare attorney before signing or challenging a noncompete agreement.

Immigration Orders and Their Economic Impact on Small Business: Insights from Attorney and Former Immigration Judge Rob Ratliff

President Trump's recent executive orders, targeting immigration policies, could significantly impact small businesses in Ohio, particularly those owned by undocumented immigrants. With stricter visa vetting, halted refugee admissions, and potential deportations, these businesses face uncertainty, workforce disruption, and closures. Ohio's immigrant-owned businesses, especially in food services and transportation, contribute billions to the state economy, and any disruption could result in economic ripple effects.

Corporate Transparency Act Ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled on the enforceability of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), lifting an injunction previously imposed by the Fifth Circuit. However, a separate nationwide injunction remains in effect, meaning businesses are still not required to comply with the CTA’s reporting requirements. FinCEN continues to accept voluntary reporting while enforcement remains paused.