On May 15, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit partially blocked Maryland’s new “greenwashing” law for retail electricity suppliers. Holding that the statute’s core advertising restriction likely violates the First Amendment, the court ordered a preliminary injunction against the provision limiting use of terms like “clean,” “green,” and “100% renewable” if the legislature’s specified conditions were not met. In contrast, the court remanded for further proceedings on Maryland’s newly issued disclosure requirements. The decision underscores the constitutional limits on how far states can go in policing environmental marketing claims — limits that are relevant to companies both in and outside the energy sector.

The New York Attorney General’s (AG) Office announced a $5 million settlement with Uphold HQ Inc. (Uphold), a cryptocurrency platform that allows users to buy, sell, and trade digital assets. The settlement resolves allegations that Uphold misleadingly promoted Cred Inc.’s now‑bankrupt investment product, CredEarn, to its customers as a safe, savings‑style vehicle.

In this episode of Regulatory Oversight, host Stephen Piepgrass is joined by his new colleague Jason Smith, a veteran Senate lawyer and strategist who spent more than 15 years on Capitol Hill. Jason’s tenure includes advising Senators John Fetterman, Patty Murray, and Mark Begich on high-stakes issues ranging from voting rights and immigration reform to pharmaceutical policy and international trade.

On May 12, we wrote about the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) longstanding “no‑deny” settlement policy heading “for a crossroads” at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Supreme Court. That crossroads arrived quickly. Just six days later, the SEC announced that it has rescinded Rule 202.5(e), the informal rule that, since 1972, conditioned settlement of an enforcement action on a defendant’s agreement not to publicly deny the Commission’s allegations. In its press release, the SEC said the policy had set the agency apart from most other federal regulators and may have created the misimpression that the Commission was trying to insulate itself from criticism, and it emphasized that ending the policy will give the SEC greater flexibility to resolve cases while preserving resources and speeding relief to investors.

Over the last couple of years, we have written about a federal case brought by the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians (the Tribe) (here, here, and here) involving key issues related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) authority to enforce the Prevent All Cigarette Trafficking Act (PACT Act) against federally recognized Indian tribes and ATF’s interpretation of key sections of the PACT Act. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld a federal district court’s decision ruling against the Tribe.

On May 8, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) quietly sent a final rule titled “Rescission of Policy Regarding Denials in Settlements of Enforcement Actions” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866. Although the text of the rule has not yet been released, the title strongly suggests that the SEC is preparing to roll back or significantly revise its decades‑old “no‑deny” settlement policy. That development arrives just as a major challenge to the policy is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In April 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced a significant shift in federal cannabis policy. Effective immediately, the following categories of marijuana have been rescheduled from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA): (i) U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drug products that contain marijuana; and (ii) marijuana in any form covered by a state medical marijuana license.