Week in Review

IN THE NEWS

• President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order delaying the enforcement of the nationwide ban on TikTok, a short-form video and social networking app, until mid-December. This order—President Trump’s fourth time extending the enforcement date of the TikTok ban—follows Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s announcement that the United States and China have reached a “framework” for a potential deal on the ownership of TikTok. In the executive order, President Trump delegated the exclusive authority for implementing the TikTok ban to the Attorney General, effectively preventing states from taking independent action on the ban.
• The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld a lower court order blocking President Trump’s firing of Federal Reserve Board member Lisa Cook. In a 2-1 decision, the court held that Cook was likely to succeed on her procedural claim that her removal violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The majority did not address the question of whether the allegations of mortgage fraud against Cook satisfied the “for cause” removal standard for Federal Reserve Board members. In his dissent, Judge Gregory Katsas found that President Trump’s reason for firing Cook met the “for cause” removal standard, which he defined as “some cause relating to the conduct, ability, fitness, or competence of the officer.” The Trump Administration requested that the Supreme Court review this decision.
• The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that the U.S. Office of Personal Management (OPM) lacked the authority to direct other agencies to terminate their probationary, or newly hired, employees. Judge William Alsup reasoned that the terminations violated the Administrative Procedure Act because OPM unlawfully exceeded its own powers, usurped powers reserved by Congress to each individual agency, and was arbitrary and capricious. Rather than reinstate the terminated employees, the court noted they had “moved on with their lives and found new jobs,” and instead ordered updates to their personnel files clarifying they were not fired for performance reasons.
• The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services appointed five members to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, following the dismissal of all 17 members in June. The appointees, including pediatric cardiologist Kirk Milhoan and epidemiologist Catherine Stein, bring expertise in infectious diseases and maternal health but have histories of criticizing COVID-19 vaccines and pandemic responses. Supporters praised the selections for restoring public trust through diverse perspectives, while critics warned they could undermine evidence-based immunization policies. The committee meets this week to recommend updates on COVID-19 booster shots and hepatitis B and measles vaccines, potentially influencing insurer coverage and public health strategies. The panel recently advised against the MMRV vaccine for young children, citing safety concerns, which raised further debate over their regulatory approach.
• The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued warning letters to Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Hims & Hers Health for allegedly misleading communications about weight-loss drugs such as Zepbound, Mounjaro, Wegovy, and Ozempic. The letters, prompted by President Trump’s executive order aimed at enhancing transparency in direct-to-consumer advertising, cited omissions of serious risks such as thyroid tumors and pancreatitis, as well as unapproved compounded semaglutide claims. Supporters, including FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, praised the letters for promoting balanced risk disclosures and protecting consumers from misleading impressions. Critics, including company spokespeople, argued that the cited media interviews were not company-controlled advertisements.
• President Trump urged the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a post on Truth Social to change reporting requirements for public companies from a quarterly to a six-month reporting period. President Trump suggested that the change would save money while allowing managers to focus on “properly running their companies.” SEC Chairman Paul Atkins is reportedly prioritizing this proposal to “further reduce unnecessary regulatory burdens on companies.”
• FDA cleared a new hypertension detection feature for the Apple Watch Series 11, enabling passive monitoring of the risk of high blood pressure using the device’s optical heart sensor. The algorithm analyzes pulse waves over 30 days to identify patterns indicating hypertension, with a clinical study of over 2,000 participants showing over 92 percent specificity and strong sensitivity for severe cases. Experts praised the clearance for advancing wearable health tools and empowering early detection of serious risks, potentially alerting 1 million undiagnosed users annually. The feature, which requires confirmation by a traditional blood pressure cuff, launches next week in over 150 countries.
• The State Administration for Market Regulation, China’s primary antitrust regulator, found that American technology company Nvidia had violated Chinese antitrust law with its 2020 acquisition of Mellanox Technologies. The State Administration previously approved the $6.9 billion acquisition on certain conditions. Although the State Administration did not specify a punishment in its one-sentence statement, it reportedly announced it would carry out a “further investigation.” The Cyberspace Administration of China also reportedly ordered Chinese technology companies, including Alibaba and TikTok’s parent company ByteDance, not to buy Nvidia chips made for the Chinese market.

WHAT WE’RE READING THIS WEEK

• In a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, Eyal G. Frank, a professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, and Kimberly Oremus, a professor at the University of Delaware’s School of Marine Science & Policy, argued that the Magnuson-Stevens Act, which implemented rebuilding requirements for commercial fishery stocks, significantly increased stock biomass. Frank and Oremus found that at least 69 percent of rebuilt fishery stocks witnessed net gains from the rebuilding process. Frank and Oremus observed that fishery stocks had stronger recoveries when subject to more stringent compliance requirements, including catch limits and precautionary management buffers. Given these results, they urged Congress to pass the latest reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
• In an essay in the University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Andrea Scoseria Katz, a professor at Washington University School of Law, Noah A. Rosenblum, a professor at New York University School of Law, and Jane Manners, a professor at the Fordham School of Law, argued that there was no consensus in the early American republic that executive power included a strong power of removal of high-level officials. They contended that the claim that executive power was “always and everywhere understood to include an indefeasible power of removal” is incorrect, despite what some—including those on the Supreme Court—may think. They concluded that, although functional and prudential considerations may favor a unitary executive with a strong removal power, historical consensus cannot support that conclusion.
• In a working paper published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Pierre Sarliève, an economist at OECD, and several coauthors used a mapping tool to assess 13 artificial intelligence (AI) regulatory efforts, including the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act and Japan’s AI governance guidelines. The Sarliève team found that these regulatory efforts prioritized risk-based approaches, blending binding rules with flexible, principles-based frameworks to balance safety and innovation. They identified regulators’ limited use of regulatory impact assessments and recommended that governments collaborate with the OECD to refine the tool, enhancing agile, evidence-based digital governance.

EDITOR’S CHOICE

• In an essay in The Regulatory Review, Erin Shortell, a legal fellow at the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law, argued that the Federal Trade Commission is the agency best positioned to regulate fraud in the carbon credits market because it possesses the “most relevant authority.” Shortell observed that, although the Biden Administration’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) was the agency most involved in trying to regulate carbon credits, the CFTC only has exclusive jurisdiction over carbon credit derivatives—a small part of the carbon credit market. Shortell noted that the CFTC has narrow authority under the Commodity Exchange Act, which only permits the CFTC to address extreme cases of fraud. Shortell also analyzed the SEC’s limited ability to regulate carbon credits, finding that, although it may be able to require certain disclosures from securities issuers, it cannot enforce the sale of high-integrity carbon credits.