The Regulatory Review

Home
United States
Philadelphia, PA
The Regulatory Review

Affiliated with the Penn Program on Regulation and housed at Penn Law, TheRegulatoryReview.org is the online source of regulatory news, analysis, and opinion.

Staffed by students at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, The Regulatory Review features work contributed by staff members, scholars, practitioners, and others interested in regulatory developments. The Regulatory Review was founded as RegBlog by Penn Program on Regulation Director and Penn Law Professor Cary Coglianese in 2011 and changed its name in 2017.

07/30/2025

In a recent essay, Michael R. Ulrich of Boston University School of Law argues that the Supreme Court’s conflicting decisions in Garland v. Cargill and Bondi v. VanDerStok reflect inconsistent methods that sow uncertainty about ATF authority and the future of federal fi****ms regulation. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/30/ulrich-consistently-inconsistent/

07/29/2025

In a recent essay, Sarah Paoletti explains how a trio of U.S. Supreme Court decisions has weakened the federal judiciary’s ability to safeguard fundamental constitutional and international human rights in the face of aggressive immigration enforcement. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/29/paoletti-access-to-justice-deferred-and-denied/

07/29/2025

In a recent essay, Ally Coll argues that the Department of Government Efficiency's abandonment of evidence-based policymaking in favor of a “chainsaw” approach to reform carries nationally consequential and likely irretrievable opportunity costs. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/29/coll-doges-misguided-abandonment-of-evidence/

07/28/2025

Under the Supreme Court’s logic in San Francisco v. EPA, “a discharge is legal until EPA tells the discharger what to do to meet water quality standards,” a reversal of the Clean Water Act’s precautionary design, Ellen Kohler of The Water Center at the University of Pennsylvania argues. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/28/kohler-shifting-the-burden-of-dirty-waters/

07/27/2025

In this week’s Saturday Seminar, scholars debate whether the No Surprises Act’s arbitration-heavy dispute system is curbing surprise medical bills or inflating costs as providers flood the process and win outsized awards. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/26/seminar-the-growing-pains-of-the-no-surprises-act/

07/24/2025

After the Supreme Court's decision in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, the HHS Secretary "could refuse to adopt the [U.S. Preventive Services] Task Force’s recommendations, fire its members, and appoint new members with questionable qualifications without any Senate check," Professor Anne Joseph O’Connell of Stanford University observes. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/24/oconnell-expert-officers-under-political-supervision/

07/23/2025

In a recent essay, Andrew Willinger of Duke’s Center for Fi****ms Law argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok—upholding ATF “ghost-gun” rules—shows public-safety and law-and-order politics outweigh broad deregulatory gun-rights rhetoric. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/23/willinger-vanderstok-and-the-ghosts-of-gun-deregulation/

07/22/2025

In a recent essay, Erika Lietzan explains that the Supreme Court’s decision in FDA v. Wages and White Lion reaffirmed that agencies like the FDA may set regulatory standards through case-by-case adjudication rather than through formal rulemaking. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/22/lietzan-nothing-to-see-here-move-along/

07/21/2025

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in FDA v. Wages & White Lion Investments "provided some clarity on the harmless error rule for agency decisions," but "left several important administrative law issues unresolved," Professor Laura Dolbow of the University of Colorado Law School observes. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/21/dolbow-recent-e-cigarette-decision-leaves-unanswered-questions/

07/20/2025

In a recent essay, Kevin T. Frazier of Texas Law calls for a “Humanity’s Best Exam” benchmark that steers AI labs toward solving concrete public-interest challenges—such as early disease detection and carbon removal—while reshaping policy, investment, and public perception around the technology’s societal benefits. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/19/frazier-its-time-for-humanitys-best-exam-for-ai/

07/17/2025

The Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management preserves the ACA’s requirement that most private health plans cover Task Force-recommended preventive services without cost sharing. This ensures continued access to cancer screenings, immunizations, and chronic disease prevention for over 150 million Americans, some scholars observe. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/17/keith-twinamatsiko-the-price-of-preserving-preventive-services-coverage/

07/16/2025

In a recent essay, Daniel A. Farber of Berkeley Law argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado unduly narrows the National Environmental Policy Act, misreads proximate cause, and deepens confusion over environmental reviews. https://www.theregreview.org/2025/07/16/farber-a-missed-opportunity-to-clarify-nepa-law/

Address

Philadelphia, PA

Telephone

(215) 898-6867

Website

https://www.TheRegReview.org/

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when The Regulatory Review posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Business

Send a message to The Regulatory Review:

The Regulatory Review

07/30/2025

07/29/2025

07/29/2025

07/28/2025

07/27/2025

07/24/2025

07/23/2025

07/22/2025

07/21/2025

07/20/2025

07/17/2025

07/16/2025

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Business

Shortcuts

Share

Category