I've been operating on the assumption that GOP senators just really like Jay Powell and want him to continue on as Chair. If Tillis is happy taking the heat for keeping Powell around, why not let him?
This just also isn't true! It can't be the case that the SEC can't touch a prediction market that starts offering securities for trading. Same as with a PM offering gambling products.
They take the view that the ban on contracts involving gaming mean you can't have a derivative on a roulette wheel spin. Which is...a unique interpretation.
I've started telling journals not to send me any.
I spoke with @clairewilliams.bsky.social re stablecoin yield.
"Much of this has been Coinbase saying we want to do activity-based whatever, and the banking industry saying we're fine with that, except for staking and Coinbase saying, no, that's an activity."
www.americanbanker.com/news/crypto-...
Interjections always welcome. I forgot the GOP position was that the voting bill had to be attached. But the Dem position was also to prohibit ICE officers from wearing masks, among other things.
Perhaps we call it a compromise and leave it at that.
Even though they're doing it (in part) because the White House threatened to do it unilaterally?
(I'm not sure how I feel about this or should feel about this, so that's a real question, not a gotcha.)
Thanks. I've known about the anti-woke laws, and understand that argument. Using the FTC Act was a new one to me.
Can any of my followers who do consumer work opine on whether debanking really is likely to be a violation of the FTC Act? It's not unlawful under the federal banking laws.
www.ftc.gov/news-events/...
I understand. Practically everyone is going around saying what you said, so unless you're in the weeds on the CEA every day, it's difficult to know otherwise.
If it's government employees, it's unlawful under the CEA.
Also, the CFTC has taken the view that insider trading is unlawful under rule 180.1.
Good for them. The claims seem pretty decent--you can't just use a no-action letter to wipe a regulation off the books.
I spoke with the @apnews.com about what's at stake in #PredictionMarkets litigation: "What’s at stake here is whether states will be able to regulate gambling or if gambling is going to be subsumed into finance and ultimately regulated by Congress.”
apnews.com/article/utah...
I'm not sure that'd suffice. When thinking about non-executive agencies, think of things like GAO and the Library of Congress*: Entities that do research to help Congress learn enough to enact laws.
* There's ongoing litigation about whether the LoC is in the legislative branch or executive.
If the agency does anything other than help Congress legislate, SCOTUS is liable to say it's part of the executive branch and subject to presidential removal.
The constitution wasn't designed for strict separation of powers.
Pleased that my co-authored piece, Regulatory History and Judicial Review, is now out in the Minnesota Law Review!
We argue that courts should allow agencies to supplement their rules' preambles with internal records to demonstrate contemporaneous rationales.
minnesotalawreview.org/wp-content/u...
Incredible! I don't think I've ever heard a diss quite like this one!
I don't know what to make of the em-dash. They clearly know how to use hyphens, but also...it should just be two words!
(Not to mention everything else going on)
It's good to know that everything I write is Sean Tuffy clickbait.
This is based on our research in our forthcoming Stanford Law Review article titled Commission Quorums.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
@nicholasbednar.bsky.social and I have an op-ed in @bloomberglaw.com encouraging litigators who suing regulatory agencies that are missing more than half of their membership (like the CFTC, FTC, and NCUA) to include quorum violations among their claims.
news.bloomberglaw.com/legal-exchan...
Does an enterprising class-action lawyer want to take this on, on the basis that the NCUA lacks a quorum and is legally unable to approve this extension?
New polling on crypto says what I've been saying for years: 42% to 32%, voters support strong legislation to protect consumers, stop scams, address money laundering, and ensure that crypto can't threaten the financial system.
punchbowl.news/2-6-26-crypt...
What's (very) old is new again, I guess.
Interesting amicus brief by @democracyforward.org in Trump's $10b tax lawuit. They convincingly make the claim that there is no case or controversy if the President is on both sides of the litigation.
Interesting consequence of the UET.
democracyforward.org/wp-content/u...
Jeez, so many rejections already...
Yeah. It real bad. You should read my paper that the article links to. I lay out all the ways it could go wrong.
We need ISDA to step in and adjudicate these contracts.
My sense is everyone who looks at this knows its gambling. But the same people who would be outraged by this are spending their time outraged by everything else that's going on.
It's going to be decided by the courts based on current law. And so far, they see this as gambling.
My understanding is that there's a view that there's money to be made now, so everyone's jumping in. Things might change in the future, but that's then.
To me, the big, big question is what happens with the Statutes of Anne lawsuits. Are they going to have to give up all that new money?