Uploaded March 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
The Federal Trade Commission’s recent overhaul of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) premerger notification rule represents one of the most significant changes to merger reporting requirements since the statute’s enactment in 1976. The revised rule dramatically expands the scope of information parties must submit at the outset of a transaction, including narrative descriptions of competitive dynamics, internal strategic materials, and additional data relating to ownership, labor markets, and supply relationships. Supporters characterize the changes as necessary modernization; critics contend they impose substantial new burdens.
Shortly after the FTC’s rule was finalized, it was challenged in federal court. On February 12, 2026, the Eastern District of Texas vacated the rule and held it exceeded the FTC’s statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Last month, the FTC appealed the District Court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Join us for a timely discussion of the implications of the FTC’s HSR premerger notification rule and the legal issues at the heart of the appeal. Panelists discuss whether the HSR Act authorizes the breadth of the FTC’s new disclosure requirements, the implications of the district court’s ruling, and the case pending before the Fifth Circuit. The conversation also addresses the practical implications for merger timing, transaction costs, and the predictability of the U.S. merger review process.
Featuring:
- Logan Billman, Associate, Gibson Dunn
- Maxwell Gottschall, Associate, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
- Jana Seidl, Senior Advisor for Competition and International Affairs, Office of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, Federal Trade Commission
- Shaoul Sussman, Partner and Co-Founder, Simonsen Sussman LLP
- (Moderator) Ashley Baker, Executive Director, Committee for Justice
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
The Federal Trade Commission’s recent overhaul of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) premerger notification rule represents one of the most significant changes to merger reporting requirements since the statute’s enactment in 1976. The revised rule dramatically expands the scope of information parties must submit at the outset of a transaction, including narrative descriptions of competitive dynamics, internal strategic materials, and additional data relating to ownership, labor markets, and supply relationships. Supporters characterize the changes as necessary modernization; critics contend they impose substantial new burdens.
Shortly after the FTC’s rule was finalized, it was challenged in federal court. On February 12, 2026, the Eastern District of Texas vacated the rule and held it exceeded the FTC’s statutory authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Last month, the FTC appealed the District Court’s ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Join us for a timely discussion of the implications of the FTC’s HSR premerger notification rule and the legal issues at the heart of the appeal. Panelists discuss whether the HSR Act authorizes the breadth of the FTC’s new disclosure requirements, the implications of the district court’s ruling, and the case pending before the Fifth Circuit. The conversation also addresses the practical implications for merger timing, transaction costs, and the predictability of the U.S. merger review process.
Featuring:
- Logan Billman, Associate, Gibson Dunn
- Maxwell Gottschall, Associate, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
- Jana Seidl, Senior Advisor for Competition and International Affairs, Office of Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson, Federal Trade Commission
- Shaoul Sussman, Partner and Co-Founder, Simonsen Sussman LLP
- (Moderator) Ashley Baker, Executive Director, Committee for Justice
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.
![Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cb27rAonjwU/mqdefault.jpg "Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?
Shaped Docuseries [Ep.3] - Who Should Decide the Rules for AI?")
![[LIVE] From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dL-iQ8dodEs/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] From the Courthouse Steps: Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook
In Trump v. Slaughter, the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) statutory for-cause removal protection violates the separation of powers, overruling Humphreys Executor. The Court reasoned that subordinates who exercise the President’s power are subject to removal by him. Thus, because the FTC exercises executive power, its Commissioners must be removable by the President at will.
Yet in Trump v. Cook, the Court, 5-4, denied the government’s request to stay an injunction blocking the removal of Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook. The Court held that a president’s asserted “for cause” statutory basis for removing a Federal Reserve governor is judicially reviewable and that Cook was entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond before removal. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that the statute was enacted against the backdrop of the common law, and that any definition of “cause” in this context must reflect the Federal Reserve’s unique historical status and role.
Join us for a webinar breaking down both decisions, the separate opinions, and what they may mean for presidential removal power, independent agencies, the Federal Reserve, and the future of the administrative state.
Featuring:
• Adam White, Laurence H. Silberman Chair in Constitutional Governance and Senior Fellow, American Enterprise Institute; Co-Director, Antonin Scalia Law School’s C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State
• Erin M. Hawley, Supreme Court & Appellate Litigation Chair, Lex Politica; Of Counsel, Alliance Defending Freedom
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/from-the-courthouse-steps-trump-v-slaughter-and-trump-v-cook
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
![[LIVE] Are Secret Gender Transition Policies Unconstitutional? Mirabelli v. Bonta & Parental Rights](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/g_Ypb8saAXM/mqdefault.jpg "[LIVE] Are Secret Gender Transition Policies Unconstitutional? Mirabelli v. Bonta & Parental Rights
Parental rights advocates celebrate the recent victory in Mirabelli v. Bonta, where the Supreme Court granted emergency relief to parents challenging a school district policy and California law requiring school officials to hide a students gender identity information from their parents. The majority in a 6-3 per curiam opinion found that the parents were likely to ultimately succeed on their claim that California’s policies violated their rights to freely exercise their religion and direct the upbringing and education of their children. The Court relied heavily on its 2025 decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor that disallowing parents from opting kids out of LGBTQ-inclusive instruction unconstitutionally burdened their right to direct their childrens religious upbringing.
Mirabelli concerned specific California policies, but the decision will necessarily impact secret transition policies nationwide. Does the outcome signal the Supreme Courts willingness to take similar cases in the future? Did the court stray from its Dobbs v. Jackson Womens Health Organization rationale regarding substantive due process in Mirabelli, or can both decisions be reconciled, despite Justice Kagans dissenting opinion to the contrary? Are the Free Exercise Clause and substantive due process the most effective mechanisms for enforcing parental rights, or are there more suitable alternatives? Join us for a discussion with a panel of experts on what this case signals for the future of parental rights.
Featuring:
• Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation, Thomas More Society; One of the Attorneys for the Mirabelli Plantiffs
• John Bursch, Senior Counsel and Vice President of Appellate Advocacy, Alliance Defending Freedom
• Sarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Senior Legal Fellow, Defending Education
• (Moderator) Eric Rassbach, Vice President and Senior Counsel, Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
Register for the live webinar at https://fedsoc.org/events/are-secret-gender-transition-policies-unconstitutional-mirabelli-v-bonta-and-the-new-frontier-in-parental-rights
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.")
