Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
SEC Rescinds Policy Regarding Denials of Settlements in Enforcement Actions
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
SEC Rescinds Policy Regarding Denials of Settlements in Enforcement Actions
*
The Securities and Exchange Commission today rescinded a policy, codified in Rule 202.5(e) of its informal rules of procedures, stating that when it chooses to settle an enforcement action in which a sanction is imposed, it will not settle unless the defendant or respondent also agrees not to publicly deny the allegations in the complaint or administrative order.
Rescinding Rule 202.5(e) aligns the Commission with
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
SEC Rescinds Policy Regarding Denials of Settlements in Enforcement Actions
*
The Securities and Exchange Commission today rescinded a policy, codified in Rule 202.5(e) of its informal rules of procedures, stating that when it chooses to settle an enforcement action in which a sanction is imposed, it will not settle unless the defendant or respondent also agrees not to publicly deny the allegations in the complaint or administrative order.
Rescinding Rule 202.5(e) aligns the Commission withthe overwhelming majority of federal agencies that do not have a similar rule and gives the Commission more flexibility in settling enforcement actions, which conserves resources, provides certainty, and potentially expedites the return of money to injured investors. The recission recognizes that the effect on the public interest from such denials may be minimal and that the policy itself may have created an incorrect impression that the Commission is trying to shield itself from criticism.
"For more than 50 years, the Commission has conditioned settlement on a defendant's promise not to publicly deny the Commission's allegations. I am pleased that we are rescinding the no-deny policy today," said SEC Chairman Paul S. Atkins. "Speech critical of the government is an important part of the American tradition. This recission ends the policy prohibiting such criticism by settling defendants."
There is no known instance of the Commission seeking to reopen an administrative or civil proceeding as a consequence of a defendant or respondent violating a no-deny provision to which they have consented.
In light of the recission of Rule 202.5(e), the Commission will not enforce existing no-deny provisions that have already been entered. In the event of a breach of an existing no-deny provision, the Commission will take no action to ask a district court to vacate a settlement (or to reopen an adjudicatory proceeding) in connection with the terms of the settlement agreement.
The Commission generally does not require settling defendants to admit to allegations. Today's recission does not affect the Commission's practice related to admissions in settlements and does not affect the Commission's discretion to settle with defendants who decline to admit facts or liability or its discretion to negotiate for admissions as part of a settlement.
***
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2026-45-sec-rescinds-policy-regarding-denials-settlements-enforcement-actions
EEOC Issues Federal Sector Appellate Decision Finding Unlawful Discrimination in Agency's Denial of Religious Accommodation to COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Issues Federal Sector Appellate Decision Finding Unlawful Discrimination in Agency's Denial of Religious Accommodation to COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
*
The U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Education violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by unlawfully discriminating against three federal employees, according to an appellate decision issued today by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Office of the Federal Sector (OFS). The
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Issues Federal Sector Appellate Decision Finding Unlawful Discrimination in Agency's Denial of Religious Accommodation to COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
*
The U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Education violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, by unlawfully discriminating against three federal employees, according to an appellate decision issued today by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) Office of the Federal Sector (OFS). Thedecision found that the agency summarily denied requests for religious accommodations to be exempt from the federal COVID-19 vaccine mandate issued by President Joe Biden in September 2021.
The appellate decision resolved appeals from three employees at the Sherman Indian High School in Riverside, California. Each employee had requested exemption from the Biden Administration's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for federal employees. Citing their sincerely held religious beliefs in the sanctity of human life, informed by their Christian faith, each employee expressed opposition to the use of human fetal cells obtained through abortion in the development of the COVID-19 vaccine. The agency denied the requests, claiming that allowing the employees to regularly test and mask in lieu of vaccination would be unsafe and expensive.
The EEOC's decision notes that the agency failed to present any evidence to support its contention that masking and regular testing would create an unsafe environment. Additionally, the agency's cost-based objection was found to be deficient once it conceded that the cost of purchasing vaccine testing supplies was underwritten by congressional funding through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act).
Consistent with EEOC's longstanding interpretation of what constitutes an undue hardship, and citing further clarification of that standard found in the Supreme Court's unanimous ruling in Groff v. Dejoy, the OFS decision concluded that the religious accommodations as requested by the appellees in this case would not have imposed a substantial burden on the agency's operations were they granted.
The decision additionally exposed significant issues with the agency's handling of employee requests for religious exemptions to the mandatory vaccination order. In one instance, the Commission noted in its decision that employees who objected to the vaccine, citing the use of aborted human fetal cells in its development, were, "summoned to an inquisitorial panel to be quizzed and lectured on their medical history and knowledge of other medicines derived from human fetal cells." The decision concluded, "[T]he crucible of invasive gotcha-style questioning was a thinly veiled and discriminatory attempt to expose supposed hypocrisy and convince Complainants to recant their objections."
"No one is above the law, especially the federal government entrusted to enforce it. Today's OFS decision is a step toward justice for federal employees who suffered under the pandemic-era policies of the Biden Administration," said EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. "The government clearly fell short of its obligation under the law. Under my leadership, the EEOC is committed to pursuing accountability, ensuring compliance, and securing justice for all workers, in both the private and public sector."
As a result of this decision, the individual complainants will be compensated for the harm caused by the agency's discriminatory actions. And the agency, under EEOC supervision, will be required to develop and maintain a fair and non-adversarial process for employees to pursue religious accommodations in the workplace.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-issues-federal-sector-appellate-decision-finding-unlawful-discrimination-agencys
CFTC Chairman Selig Announces DJ Hennes as Director of the Market Participants Division
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
CFTC Chairman Selig Announces DJ Hennes as Director of the Market Participants Division
*
Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Michael S. Selig today announced DJ Hennes will serve as director of the Market Participants Division.
"I am pleased to welcome DJ to the CFTC," Chairman Selig said. "He brings a wealth of experience advising clients across the financial services industry, including CFTC intermediaries, on governance, risk, compliance, and enforcement matters. His experience
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Commodity Futures Trading Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
CFTC Chairman Selig Announces DJ Hennes as Director of the Market Participants Division
*
Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chairman Michael S. Selig today announced DJ Hennes will serve as director of the Market Participants Division.
"I am pleased to welcome DJ to the CFTC," Chairman Selig said. "He brings a wealth of experience advising clients across the financial services industry, including CFTC intermediaries, on governance, risk, compliance, and enforcement matters. His experiencewith crypto assets and prediction markets will also be of tremendous value as we seek to future-proof the CFTC's rules and regulations for these innovations."
"I am honored to be joining the Commission. I look forward to working with Chairman Selig, his leadership team, and the dedicated staff as we continue the CFTC's mission of fostering integrity, innovation, and liquidity in our vibrant derivatives markets," Hennes said.
Hennes joins the CFTC from KPMG LLP, where he was a managing director in the firm's Financial Services Risk & Compliance Advisory Practice. Prior to joining KPMG, he spent 15 years at Promontory Financial Group, most recently leading its Capital Markets Practice for the Americas.
Hennes received his B.A. in History and Economics from Vanderbilt University.
***
Original text here: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/9232-26
Campaign Legal Center v. FEC (26-1559) seeks to vacate Advisory Opinion 2024-01
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news:
* * *
Campaign Legal Center v. FEC (26-1559) seeks to vacate Advisory Opinion 2024-01
*
On May 6, 2026, the Campaign Legal Center (plaintiff) filed suit against the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiff alleges that Advisory Opinion (AO) 2024-01 unlawfully permits federal candidates to outsource and conceal campaign spending through coordinated canvassing financed by outside groups.
Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Commission's approval of AO 2024-01 is contrary to
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news:
* * *
Campaign Legal Center v. FEC (26-1559) seeks to vacate Advisory Opinion 2024-01
*
On May 6, 2026, the Campaign Legal Center (plaintiff) filed suit against the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiff alleges that Advisory Opinion (AO) 2024-01 unlawfully permits federal candidates to outsource and conceal campaign spending through coordinated canvassing financed by outside groups.
Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Commission's approval of AO 2024-01 is contrary tolaw and arbitrary and capricious, and violates the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Plaintiff also asks the court to vacate and set aside AO 2024-01.
***
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/campaign-legal-center-v-fec-26-1559-seeks-to-vacate-advisory-opinion-2024-01/
Campaign Legal Center v. FEC (26-1559) seeks to vacate Advisory Opinion 2024-01
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news:
* * *
Campaign Legal Center v. FEC (26-1559) seeks to vacate Advisory Opinion 2024-01
*
On May 6, 2026, the Campaign Legal Center (plaintiff) filed suit against the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiff alleges that Advisory Opinion (AO) 2024-01 unlawfully permits federal candidates to outsource and conceal campaign spending through coordinated canvassing financed by outside groups.
Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Commission's approval of AO 2024-01 is contrary to
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news:
* * *
Campaign Legal Center v. FEC (26-1559) seeks to vacate Advisory Opinion 2024-01
*
On May 6, 2026, the Campaign Legal Center (plaintiff) filed suit against the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiff alleges that Advisory Opinion (AO) 2024-01 unlawfully permits federal candidates to outsource and conceal campaign spending through coordinated canvassing financed by outside groups.
Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the Commission's approval of AO 2024-01 is contrary tolaw and arbitrary and capricious, and violates the Federal Election Campaign Act (the Act) and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Plaintiff also asks the court to vacate and set aside AO 2024-01.
***
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/campaign-legal-center-v-fec-26-1559-seeks-to-vacate-advisory-opinion-2024-01/
A G Equipment to Pay $4.25 Million to Settle EEOC Discrimination Charges Over COVID Vaccine-Related Mandate
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
A G Equipment to Pay $4.25 Million to Settle EEOC Discrimination Charges Over COVID Vaccine-Related Mandate
*
Oklahoma-based manufacturer settles federal suit alleging religious and disability-based discrimination after mass firing of unvaccinated employees
TULSA, Okla. -A G Equipment Company, a Broken Arrow, Oklahoma compressor packaging manufacturer, will pay $4,250,000 to over 40 workers and provide other relief to settle a religious and disability discrimination lawsuit filed by
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 18 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
A G Equipment to Pay $4.25 Million to Settle EEOC Discrimination Charges Over COVID Vaccine-Related Mandate
*
Oklahoma-based manufacturer settles federal suit alleging religious and disability-based discrimination after mass firing of unvaccinated employees
TULSA, Okla. -A G Equipment Company, a Broken Arrow, Oklahoma compressor packaging manufacturer, will pay $4,250,000 to over 40 workers and provide other relief to settle a religious and disability discrimination lawsuit filed bythe U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the federal agency announced today.
According to the EEOC's suit, in the fall of 2021, A G Equipment mandated that all employees receive a COVID-19 vaccination and told workers no exemptions would be permitted for any reason. Nonetheless, several employees requested exemptions based on their religious beliefs. One worker supplemented their request with a doctor's note requesting an exemption due to a medical condition. The company refused to discuss the employees' requests and fired all individuals who did not provide proof of vaccination, on Oct. 15, 2021, including workers who requested accommodations.
"When these workers asked for a simple religious accommodation, the company didn't pause to listen or even consider the impact," said Patrick J. Holman, trial attorney for the EEOC's Oklahoma City Area Office. "It fired every one of them outright -without a conversation and without any real inquiry into whether granting an accommodation would have caused the business any hardship at all. This is unlawful as well as unfair."
EEOC Chair Andrea R. Lucas said, "Where an accommodation can be provided without undue hardship, the law requires it -the pandemic did not exempt employers from their legal obligations under Title VII and the ADA. The EEOC under my leadership will continue to hold employers accountable, deliver meaningful results, and restore dignity to American workers harmed by widespread COVID-19 vaccine-related civil rights violations."
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which prohibit religious and disability-based discrimination. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC, et al., v. A G Equipment Company, Case No. 24-cv-00403-SEH) in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
In addition to providing $4.25 million in monetary relief for 43 workers who were fired because they were unvaccinated, the three-year consent decree resolving the suit enjoins A G Equipment from discriminating based on religion or disability in the future. The decree also requires the company to train managers in compliance with Title VII and the ADA; inform employees regarding their right to reasonable accommodation for religion and disability; and report to the EEOC about handling future accommodation requests.
"The EEOC is committed to ensuring that workers receive the religious and disability accommodations they are entitled to," said David S. Davis, district director of the EEOC's St. Louis District Office. "Our doors are open to serve American workers."
For more information on religious and disability-based discrimination, please visit www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination and www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-disability-related-resources.
The EEOC's St. Louis District Office has jurisdiction over Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and a portion of southern Illinois.
The EEOC is the sole federal agency authorized to investigate and litigate against businesses and other private sector employers for violations of federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. For public sector employers, the EEOC shares jurisdiction with the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division. The EEOC also is responsible for coordinating the federal government's employment antidiscrimination effort. More information about the EEOC is available at www.eeoc.gov.
***
Original text here: https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/g-equipment-pay-425-million-settle-eeoc-discrimination-charges-over-covid-vaccine-related
FCC Approves National Exchange Carrier Association 2026 Modification of Average Schedules
WASHINGTON, May 16 -- The Federal Communications Commission has approved the updated formulas for average-schedule interstate settlement disbursements proposed by the National Exchange Carrier Association Inc., Morristown, New Jersey. Released on May 15, 2026, the order (WC Docket No. 25-339) authorizes the revised formulas for a one-year period running from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027.
NECA administers interstate access tariffs for rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carriers participating in its access charge tariff pools. Average-schedule companies receive compensation based on
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, May 16 -- The Federal Communications Commission has approved the updated formulas for average-schedule interstate settlement disbursements proposed by the National Exchange Carrier Association Inc., Morristown, New Jersey. Released on May 15, 2026, the order (WC Docket No. 25-339) authorizes the revised formulas for a one-year period running from July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027.
NECA administers interstate access tariffs for rate-of-return incumbent local exchange carriers participating in its access charge tariff pools. Average-schedule companies receive compensation based onthese formulas rather than individual cost studies. The formulas simulate the disbursements a representative cost company would receive.
The Wireline Competition Bureau, in coordination with the Office of Economics and Analytics, reviewed the submission filed on December 23, 2025. Following a public notice issued in January 2026, no comments were filed. The bureau found the proposed modifications reasonable and expected them to accurately simulate representative cost disbursements.
The updated formulas utilize data from a five-year sample design spanning 2024 to 2028, incorporating information from the 2024 study year alongside data from 2023. NECA did not include any adjustment for forgiven Paycheck Protection Program loans, which had affected prior disbursements.
At constant demand, NECA projects the formula updates will cause a 2.32% overall increase in average-schedule settlements across the 244 participating study areas. However, factoring in actual projected demand shifts--such as access line losses and lower special access demand alongside growth in consumer broadband-only loops (CBOL)--actual settlements are expected to rise by an average of 4.1%. NECA indicated that projected increases in CBOL demand serve as the primary driver for this upward shift.
Changes vary by category. At constant demand, common line access line settlements are projected to rise by 2.05%, driven by account growth and declining demand. CBOL formula settlements are expected to increase by 4.72%. Special access digital subscriber line (DSL) formulas show a projected 3.34% increase, while special access non-DSL formulas are expected to decrease by 0.73%.
Signed by Lynne H. Engledow, Chief of the Pricing Policy Division within the Wireline Competition Bureau, the order became effective upon its release.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-477A1.pdf
