Todd Phillips

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....

Litigators Urged to Challenge Potentially Inquorate Agencies For the past year, several federal multimember regulatory agencies have been operating with a fraction of their seats filled. Though a single absence doesn’t impede a commission’s ability to operate, ...

@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?

I'm not sure. I think Kalshi was going to lose the elections contract litigation before the CFTC threw in the towel.

Well, the CFTC did ban sports contracts. The new administration just isn't enforcing that ban.

Great. Posting at senators on here isn't going to do anything, but direct emails to staff might.

Also, please forward me the text of the email you send so I can also send one. It's not my area, but I know fixing this law is important.

Get the names of the homeland security staffers for Warnock and Ossoff and send them emails explaining (1) you're a constitutent and (2) why amending § 1983 is imperative. It's possible their bosses don't know that it should be an ask.

Litigating Supervisory Ratings Written by Todd Phillips

No. This is actually somewhat sui generis, as the issues this office deals with aren't generally subject to appeal to federal court because they don't carry legal consequences. I obliquely wrote about it here: openbanker.beehiiv.com/p/litigating...

It turns out, industry doesn't really like the unitary executive theory.

At the encouragement of the banking industry, the FDIC (which includes Russ Vought) just approved procedures that remove PAS officials from adjudicating cases.

www.fdic.gov/board/federa...

Because the FTC was created the next year, it gets treated differently. Of course.

I'm shocked, shocked to learn this!

www.lawfaremedia.org/article/repe...

I'm not sure that's it. For better or worse, this is a fight over revenues. That's why there's pretty much a single-minded focus on *sports* contracts and not all other contracts that don't serve any hedging purpose.

I can't tell you the number of times I've tried ripping my hair out trying to explain that owning a note is economically equivalent to owning a bond.

Sure seems like a yield amendment was going to pass the Banking Committee, and that's why Coinbase blew up the markup!

I know most folks on Bluesky don't follow crypto, but I put this on the Other Site and figured I'd post it here for anyone who wants to understand what's going on.

TL;DR: Community/regional banks and Coinbase are locked in a zero-sum competition. If one wins, the other loses.

Oh, sorry! Numbers #7 and #8 in your thread. I just re-read them and realized that you're saying what the conservative justices could think. Yes, they could think this. I think they'd be wrong (for the reasons I wrote), but they certainly could think it!

(That Fed majority could fire reserve bank presidents under Free Enterprise Fund, thus taking control of the FOMC, which is the interest-rate setting body.) 2/2

I'm not sure this is right. Trump hasn't tried to fire Powell, but he did "fire" Cook. I'll bet the only reason he didn't fire another governor was because SCOTUS didn't allow Cook to be removed.

If SCOTUS allowed two governors to be removed, that'd give Trump a Fed majority. 1/

Spot on