Category:Regulation
The Court Struck Down the Tariffs but the Compliance Nightmare Got Worse
For companies that spent the past year paying billions in tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), February 20, 2026 looked like a victory. The Supreme Court ruled that the IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. But, if compliances officer, general counsel, and importers should not celebrate yet. The ruling did not end the tariff saga; it merely opened a new and more chaotic chapter.
The Government’s Block of Anthropic and the Future of AI Procurement
Governments around the world have increasingly turned to artificial intelligence (AI) as a tool for defense and national security. In the United States, that shift has come with its share of conflict. In early 2026, a dispute between the federal government and AI company Anthropic came to a head after the Trump administration moved to bar the Pentagon from using Anthropic’s Claude software. At its core, the standoff exposed a tension that is only going to grow more common: tech companies that want to set limits on how their products are used, versus a government that sees those limits as a threat to its own capabilities. The Department of Defense had previously brought Claude into certain internal tools and workflows. But Anthropic’s restrictions on military use created friction with agencies that wanted broader access to the software. When those disagreements proved unresolvable, the administration granted agencies six months to stop using Anthropic products entirely, turning what had been a contract dispute into one of the more public clashes between Washington and a tech company in recent memory.
Betting on Compliance: Regulatory Challenges for Online Sports Betting Apps
The explosive growth of online sports betting in the United States over the past decade has created a complex regulatory frontier for digital wagering platforms. After the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the federal ban on sports gambling in Murphy v. NCAA, states have individually determined how and whether to legalize mobile sports wagering. This state-by-state patchwork, combined with the rise of innovative betting products, has generated compliance challenges in age verification, geolocation enforcement, consumer protection, anti-money laundering obligations, and advertising—issues that extend far beyond traditional in-person gambling regulation.
The Real Problem with Affordable Housing in America is Not Large Institutional Investors
“To preserve the supply of single-family homes for American families and increase the paths to homeownership,” President Donald Trump signed an executive order on January 20th, 2026, preventing “large institutional investors” from buying “single-family home[’s].” The definitions of “large institutional investor” and “single-family home” are to be determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent, by February 19th. However, even with an expansive definition of what constitutes a “large institutional investor,” this executive order seems likely to fall short of its intended goal. Large institutional investors account for too small of a share of single-family homeowners in the United States for this executive order to have any significant impact on housing affordability. Instead, to support housing affordability President Trump’s administration should focus on loosening credit standards, incentivizing home builders, and adopting economic policies to curb inflation, which in turn will lead to mortgage rate reductions.
The Need for Stronger Regulation of the Taxation of Churches
Carolyn Nsimpasi
Associate Editor
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2026
In the United States, churches and religious organizations qualify for exemptions from federal income tax under IRS Section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. While the intention behind this exemption is to protect religious freedom and support nonprofit missions, the lack of robust regulatory frameworks has opened the door to potential misuse. As religious institutions grow in both size and financial complexity, the public benefits they provide do not always receive the same scrutiny as their financial practices. Consequently, it is time for this exemption to be either eliminated entirely or significantly modified following an intensive evaluation of its regulation.
Sports Gambling in the Post-Murphy Landscape
Since the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Murphy v. NCAA, which struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act, the sports betting industry has expanded at an extraordinary rate. Sports wagering is now legal in 38 states and Washington, D.C. In 2024, licensed sportsbooks handled nearly $150 billion in bets and generated more than $14.2 billion in operator revenue. State and local governments collected roughly $2.9 billion in taxes, and the federal government received over $375 million through the federal excise tax. This expansion, however, has also produced a complicated and evolving set of regulatory and compliance challenges.
Is Texas the Most Business Friendly State in America?
With its low tax burden on businesses, no state income tax, a large and diverse economy, and a strong work force, Texas has hosted an exceptionally business friendly environment for decades. The state is home to over 50 Fortune 500 companies (the most in the United States), has the 8th largest economy in the world and the second largest in the United States, and has one of the fastest growing populations. In recent years, Texas has been making its case as the most business friendly environment in the United States.
On the Clock: Exploring the TikTok Sale
The world of social media has rapidly evolved from a way to connect with friends to an integral component of global communication, commerce, and culture. Since 2010, social media platforms have consistently shaped daily life with individuals spending countless hours on their favorite platforms. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok have amassed billions of users. With such influence comes heightened regulatory scrutiny over data privacy, national security, and corporate accountability. TikTok has drawn intense regulatory oversight due to its ownership by the Chinese company ByteDance, which has prompted fears of foreign influence and national security risks among U.S. regulators. The culmination of these concerns resulted in the passing of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACA). Under the PAFACA, ByteDance is required to sell off TikTok’s U.S. operations. This compelled sale has sparked a debate over the balance between corporate autonomy, data governance, and national security. It has also raised broader questions about future industry-wide regulations, indicating that social media platforms may soon face heightened scrutiny and standardized requirements for data handling and corporate transparency.
NHTSA’s New Rule Expands Seat Belt Compliance
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) recently finalized a rule requiring seat belt alarms for drivers and front seat passengers. The new rule became effective on March 4, 2025, with ongoing expansion in years to come. This is an amendment to Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 208, or “Occupant crash protection” which required seat belt warnings for drivers seats only. FMVSS No. 208 originally went into effect in 1968 and has had major improvements since its enactment. This particular improvement will require manufacturers to install front seat belt warnings in all new vehicles by September 1, 2026, but manufacturers can begin implementing the new rule before September 1, 2026. FMVSS No. 208 will apply to cars, trucks, multipurpose vehicles and certain kinds of buses. The change comes after the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), which required NHTSA to regulate rear seat belt warnings in vehicles.
Power Without Process: Federal Enforcement in Chicago Tests the Rule of Law
The Trump administration’s decision to deploy Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and National Guard troops in Chicago has sparked nationwide debate over the boundaries of lawful enforcement. Federal officials describe the move as a necessary step to protect agents and restore order. State and local leaders, however, have accused the federal government of ignoring the legal limits that govern both immigration and military authority. Beneath the political clash lies a deeper legal concern: whether federal agencies are operating within the procedural safeguards and statutory frameworks that legitimize their power.