Week in Review

IN THE NEWS

• The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Cook, a case expected to clarify whether the President may immediately remove a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Last August, President Donald J. Trump fired Lisa Cook, a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, accusing her of mortgage fraud—an allegation Cook denies. Under current law, the President may remove members of the Federal Reserve Board only “for cause.” During oral arguments, all nine justices appeared skeptical that the President possesses unlimited “for cause” removal authority. This skepticism is notable in light of the Court’s prior decisions this term permitting the President to remove members of several other multi-member, independent agencies.
• The U.S. Senate failed to pass legislation extending enhanced Affordable Care Act premium tax credits before the open enrollment deadline, leaving approximately 21 million enrollees facing significantly higher premiums starting early this year. The enhanced subsidies, enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic and extended through 2025, reduced average monthly premiums by about $800 for many participants. Their expiration could increase costs by 114 percent on average, potentially causing 4 million people to become uninsured. Democrats pushed for a multi-year extension, while Republicans proposed redirecting funds to health savings accounts and restricting eligibility, but bipartisan negotiations collapsed over fiscal and policy differences.
• The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued new guidance emphasizing that broadcast television stations—specifically stations’ daytime and late night talk shows—must adhere to the equal opportunity rule. This rule, derived from Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, requires broadcast licensees to provide all legally qualified candidates running for the same office with “comparable time and placement” on the public airwaves. In this guidance, the FCC characterized late night and daytime talk shows as “programming motivated by partisan purposes,” and explained that they have not presented evidence that they fall into an exception to the equal opportunity rule allowing for bona fide news interviews of legally qualified candidates. This guidance marked a reversal of FCC policy, as the FCC had found in 2006 that the interview portion of a late night talk show fit within this exception.
• President Trump urged lawmakers to pass legislation capping credit card interest rates at 10 percent for one year. Earlier this month in a Truth Social post, President Trump called on credit card companies to voluntarily implement the cap. The legislative outlook remains uncertain following pushback from Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.), while Senators such as Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) previously introduced a bill last year which would have capped credit card interest rates at 10 percent for five years.
• The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a notice of appeal from a ruling last year that favored technology company Meta in a high-profile monopolization case. The FTC alleges that Meta, which owns Facebook, illegally maintained a monopoly in the market for “personal social networking” through anticompetitive conduct, including acquiring potential competitors such as Instagram and WhatsApp. U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg previously wrote that the FTC had an “uphill battle,” especially with the rise of other social media platforms such as TikTok.
• The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that it will launch a new federal study examining potential health effects of cellphone radiation exposure, with results expected in 2027. The initiative, directed by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., aims to review existing research on radiofrequency electromagnetic fields and conduct new assessments of long-term risks, including cancer, neurological effects, and developmental impacts in children. HHS cited growing public concern and gaps in prior studies, despite scientific consensus from organizations, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and World Health Organization, that current exposure limits are protective. Supporters praised the move as a step toward addressing understudied risks, while critics warned it could revive unfounded fears and distract from established evidence, potentially affecting consumer confidence and regulatory stability.
• Several major pharmaceutical companies expressed concerns that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) new expedited review programs could expose them to heightened legal risk. Industry insiders warned that shortened FDA review timelines may limit time for thorough safety data collection and post-approval studies, increasing the chance of unforeseen adverse events after approval. The FDA defended the programs as necessary to address unmet needs, noting that they still require robust premarket evidence and post-market commitments. Critics warned that rushed approvals might lead to recalls, litigation, and eroded public trust in the regulatory process.
• The National Emergency Dominance Council signed an agreement with several governors of Mid-Atlantic states to urge PJM Interconnection, the largest electricity grid in the United States, to require technology companies to pay for new power generation. The Trump Administration and the states encouraged PJM to carry out an emergency government-buying auction to develop these new power plants. They also called on PJM to cap the costs that existing power plants may charge to utility customers. In support of this initiative, U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright reportedly stated that “we need to be able to build new generation to accommodate new jobs and new growth.”

WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK

• In a recent article in the University of Virginia Law Review, Danielle Keats Citron of the University of Virginia School of Law and Ari Ezra Waldman of the University of California Irvine School of Law argued that the parental control model for regulating addictive technologies for minors undermines youth privacy. Citron and Waldman explained that the parental control model, where technology companies give controls to parents to manage their children’s digital access, favors parental authority and is supported by social norms about responsible parenting. They argued that the parental control model interferes with youth development and enables technology companies to evade liability for the harms they cause to children Citron and Waldman recommended that future youth privacy laws regulate technology companies directly, include youth voices, and emphasize collaboration between parents and youth.
• In a recent essay in the Yale Journal on Regulation’s blog, Notice & Comment, Harvey L. Reiter, an adjunct professor of law at The George Washington University Law School, discussed what could be lost—beyond job security—if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns its 90-year-old decision that allows Congress to prevent the President from firing heads of independent agencies without cause. He argued that such a decision would likely lead to the disappearance of bipartisan boards and commissions, because it would be unconstitutional to require the President to nominate agency members from the opposing political party. Reiter also contended that independent agencies’ ability to function could be undermined, because a President could circumvent quorum requirements by firing specific members of a board.
• In a recent Brookings Institution report, Malihe Alikhani, a Brookings visiting fellow, and Sabit Hassan, CEO of Moonworks AI, examined why current efforts to make artificial intelligence (AI) match human values often fall short. They explained that trying to align AI with broad “human values” can create unreliable systems that cause harm, while “thick” alignment—carefully adjusting AI for specific situations—works better. Using a method called active learning, where AI is retrained on examples it gets wrong, Alikhani and Hassan showed improvements in two real-world cases: AI agents in homes that learn to keep people safe, and chat models that help keep online conversations respectful. In both cases, the targeted training made the AI safer and fairer. They concluded that policymakers, researchers, and communities must work together to build AI that is reliable, fits specific needs, and truly supports people in everyday life.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

• In an essay in The Regulatory Review, Laura Dolbow, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School, argued that patent protections are a key driver of high drug prices. She explained that patents enable pharmaceutical companies to exclude generic competitors from the market for a longer time. For example, Dolbow noted how pharmaceutical companies often patent multiple parts of the same drug to prolong the duration of their protection. She concluded that this dynamic motivated the creation of the Medicare price negotiation scheme in the Inflation Reduction Act, which targeted drugs protected by patents that “do not face bona fide generic competition.”