Search for:
Category

USA

Category

On August 29, 2025, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a 7-4 en banc opinion in VOS Selections, Inc. v. Trump, holding that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President to impose broad, indefinite tariffs. The case was initially brought in the Court of International Trade (CIT) by private businesses and the US state attorneys general. The President invoked IEEPA on various grounds, including concerns about drug enforcement, border security, and trade deficits. In a May decision granting summary judgment to the VOS Selections plaintiffs, the CIT found that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose the tariffs at issue, which the US Government appealed.

In March 2025, the Home Office issued a revised version of its statutory guidance “Transparency in Supply Chains” following the House of Lords Modern Slavery Act 2015 Committee’s report. This marks the first full revision of the guidance in nearly a decade. In an article for Compliance & Risk, Jon Tuck and David Yadid examine the current legal framework under the Act, unpack the key changes introduced by the new guidance, and consider their implications for businesses.

The week of July 14 to 18, 2025 marked a historic moment for the U.S. cryptocurrency industry, as the U.S. House of Representatives officially designated it “Crypto Week”. This initiative signalled a profound shift in how Washington approaches the burgeoning digital asset landscape, moving from cautious observation to active legislative engagement. While much of the attention landed on the GENIUS Act, it is also important to understand the implications of the CLARITY Act and the Anti-CBDC Act.

Via the Internet, companies can publish information, offer contracts, deliver virtual items, and send payments to any country in the world. Companies can also collect personal information from consumers anywhere on the planet. For attorneys, this raises the question of what law governs transactions and activities involving businesses or legal entities in more than one jurisdiction. In this article, we summarize a few principles, flag commonly relevant issues, and suggest practical approaches for attorneys advising Internet businesses.

On July 18, 2025, President Trump signed into law the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act), marking a pivotal moment in the evolution of digital asset regulation. As the first comprehensive federal framework governing payment stablecoins, the GENIUS Act introduces a robust regulatory regime designed to enhance market integrity and consumer protection. The GENIUS Act will take effect on the earlier of (i) January 18, 2027 (i.e., 18 months following enactment) or (ii) 120 days following the issuance of final implementing regulations. This relatively short compliance runway underscores the urgency for stakeholders to begin preparing now.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act makes three major changes to the interest deduction limitation provision of §163(j). Pub. L. No. 119-21, §70303, §70341 (July 4, 2025), applicable to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2024. This article reviews the three changes and then focuses on the new rule for capitalized interest.

On July 4, 2025, the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act was signed into law, making important changes to the Internal Revenue Code. The Act has implications for US and non-US companies and their domestic and international transactions, capital investment, and research and development activities, amongst other areas, which carry significant weight for the cryptocurrency/digital asset industry. From cryptocurrency exchanges, payment processors, asset managers and cryptocurrency funds to mining companies, token issuers, custodians, and centralized or decentralized lending platforms, the Act’s provisions reshape the tax landscape in ways that demand close attention.

The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, in partnership with the U.S. Postal Service, has launched a Whistleblower Rewards Program to combat antitrust crimes. Following the DOJ Criminal Division’s launch of a whistleblower pilot program last year,1 the Antitrust Division is now offering a reward to whistleblowers. Under the new program, individuals who report credible and timely evidence of antitrust collusion—such as price-fixing or bid-rigging and certain monopolization cases—may receive up to 30% of recovered criminal fines. This marks a significant step in expanding detection tools for antitrust violations, with reports to be submitted through a dedicated DOJ webpage.

At the Annual Compliance conference recently held in London, the session on ‘Supply chains – Navigating ESG and Trade-related Risks’ examined the intensifying ESG and trade-related risks facing global supply chains, shaped by shifting political priorities and evolving regulatory frameworks.