Featured Stories
USITC MAKES DETERMINATION IN CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REVIEW CONCERNING FRESH TOMATOES FROM MEXICO
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release on June 30, 2026:
* * *
USITC MAKES DETERMINATION IN CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REVIEW CONCERNING FRESH TOMATOES FROM MEXICO
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) today determined that there are not changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation of the existing antidumping order on imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico.
Commissioners Jason E. Kearns and Amy A. Karpel voted that there are not such changed circumstances. Chairman David S. Johanson did not participate in
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The U.S. International Trade Commission issued the following news release on June 30, 2026:
* * *
USITC MAKES DETERMINATION IN CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES REVIEW CONCERNING FRESH TOMATOES FROM MEXICO
The U.S. International Trade Commission (Commission or USITC) today determined that there are not changed circumstances sufficient to warrant revocation of the existing antidumping order on imports of fresh tomatoes from Mexico.
Commissioners Jason E. Kearns and Amy A. Karpel voted that there are not such changed circumstances. Chairman David S. Johanson did not participate inthe vote.
As a result of the Commission's determination, the existing order on imports of this product from Mexico will continue.
Today's action follows the Commission's institution of investigation, dated January 21, 2026, under section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(b)), to review its determination in Inv. No. 731-TA-747 (Final). See the attached background information for more information about changed circumstances reviews.
The Commission's public report, Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico (Inv. No. 751-TA-30, USITC Publication 5762, July 2026), will contain the views of the Commission and information developed during the investigation.
The report will be available on the USITC website by August 17, 2026.
BACKGROUND
Changed circumstances reviews are made by the U.S. Department of Commerce and/or the USITC with respect to final affirmative determinations that resulted in a countervailing duty order or antidumping duty order. They also apply to suspension agreements that resulted from a countervailing duty or antidumping duty investigation. Commerce and the USITC conduct such reviews under section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. Sec. 1675(b)) based on information or at the request of an interested party. The USITC's regulation regarding changed circumstances reviews can be found at 19 C.F.R. Sec. 207.45.
In changed circumstances reviews involving a countervailing duty or antidumping duty order, the USITC shall determine whether revocation of the order or finding is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury. In reviews involving a suspension agreement, the USITC must determine whether the suspension agreement continues to eliminate completely the injurious effects of imports of the subject merchandise.
Additional information about the investigation, including the results of today's vote, is located on the investigations page for Fresh Tomatoes from Mexico; Inv. No. 751-30.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.usitc.gov/press_room/news_release/2026/er0630_68831.htm
FCC Wireline Competition Bureau Issues Public Notice Seeking Comment on Proposed Eligible Services List for E-Rate Program
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 13-184):
* * *
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) pursuant to section 54.502(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission) rules seeks comment on the proposed funding year (FY) 2027 eligible services list (ESL) for the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, also known as the E-Rate program./1
In the Funding Year 2026 Eligible Services List Order, we declined to make any changes to managed internal broadband services
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Wireline Competition Bureau issued the following public notice (WC Docket No. 13-184):
* * *
The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) pursuant to section 54.502(e) of the Federal Communications Commission's (Commission) rules seeks comment on the proposed funding year (FY) 2027 eligible services list (ESL) for the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism, also known as the E-Rate program./1
In the Funding Year 2026 Eligible Services List Order, we declined to make any changes to managed internal broadband services(MIBS) in the FY 2026 ESL and noted we would seek additional comment./2 In the recently adopted Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission reiterated its concern about its ability to review the cost-effectiveness of contracts for MIBS and asked whether it should continue to be a supported service within the E-Rate program./3 In that item, the Commission is seeking "comment, and specific proposals, on how the Commission should define and ensure costeffective purchasing for these services. For example, should reimbursement for MIBS services be limited to the number of hours worked with the requirement that tickets for work requested/performed and hours worked be included with requests for reimbursement?"/4 The Commission is also seeking comment on "[w]hat information should applicants include in an FCC Form 470 or request for proposal document when requesting MIBS to ensure bidders have sufficient information to submit a responsive bid and applicants can effectively compare bids to select the most cost-effective service offering?"/5 The Commission also asks whether "requiring applicants to compare bids on internal connections directly with those of a MIBS bid help safeguard applicants and the E-Rate program from MIBS providers offering contracts at rates that exceed the value of the network itself."/6 Finally, the Commission also asks whether "we limit eligibility of MIBS to schools and libraries of a certain size instead of eliminating it as a supported service?"/7
In addition to these questions, we also seek comment on how to limit MIBS to ensure it is costeffective for both the applicant and the E-Rate program. For example, how do we prevent MIBS from being used to augment a school's or library's information technology department or team when a school's or library's staffing costs are ineligible for E-Rate support? How can we ensure ineligible services and equipment are not being bundled with a MIBS service? How can we determine what services are being provided through a MIBS contract and how to limit support to eligible services and equipment? If an applicant owns the internal connections, should the applicant be limited to seeking only basic maintenance of internal connections (BMIC) instead of MIBS for its owned equipment? Given our concerns about the cost-effectiveness of MIBS and ensuring only eligible services and equipment are funded, should the Commission make MIBS ineligible for E-Rate support or otherwise limit support to certain sized schools and libraries? We encourage commenters to file comments related to MIBS in both proceedings under WC Docket Nos. 26-133 and 13-184.
In the Funding Year 2026 Eligible Services List Order, we also noted that Lumen Technologies, Inc. (Lumen) had requested clarification on the eligibility of services and equipment stemming from its network-as-a-service (NaaS). Based on our understanding, applicants could receive variable amounts of service throughout the school year with pricing based on actual use instead of being based on a set amount of service for each month. While the FCC Form 471 permits applicants to indicate that a service is burstable, the cost of the service is fixed and the FCC Form 471 does not collect information to request variable amounts of bandwidth for each month and at different prices. We seek comment on whether or how the FCC Forms 470 and 471 could be modified to account for monthly variable services and pricing. What information should applicants include in an FCC Form 470 or request for proposal document when requesting monthly variable services to ensure bidders have sufficient information to submit a responsive bid and applicants can effectively compare the costs of bids for monthly variable services to fixed monthly services? What information should be collected on the FCC forms to allow the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) to accurately commit funding for services that will vary each month in amount and cost? Specifically, how would we calculate demand for the program for services with variable costs? What safeguards and limits should we impose on NaaS and other services with variable pricing? Are such variable pricing services likely to lower or raise costs to the Fund? What equipment is needed to provide NasS and other services with variable costs? Should services with variable costs, like NaaS, remain ineligible given the heavy administrative burdens associated with funding this type of services? We seek comment on these questions and the extent to which service providers offer and applicants seek such services.
The Bureau is not proposing any other changes to the draft funding year 2027 ESL. We invite stakeholders to comment on the questions related to MIBS and monthly variable NaaS services. Pursuant to section 1.419 of the Commission's rules,/8 interested parties may file comments on or before July 30, 2026, and reply comments on or before August 14, 2026. All comments are to reference WC Docket Nos. 26-133 and 13-184 and may be filed by paper or by using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
* Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
- Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial courier, or by the U.S. Postal Service. All filings must be addressed to the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
- Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of before entering the building.
- Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
- Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail, Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express must be sent to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible formats (braille, large print, electronic files, or audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530.
Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be publicly available online via ECFS./9
Ex Parte Rules. The proceeding this Public Notice initiates shall be treated as a "permit-but-disclose" proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules./10 Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the ex parte memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's rules./11 In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) of the Commission's rules,/12 or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through ECFS in the docket available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ See 47 CFR Sec. 54.502(e) (detailing the procedures for seeking comment on a draft E-Rate program eligible services list); Attachment, Draft Schools and Libraries Eligible Services List for Funding Year 2027.
2/ Funding Year 2026 Eligible Services List Order, WC Docket No. 13-184, Order, DA 25-1069, para. 9 (WCB 2025) (Funding Year 2026 Eligible Services List Order); see also Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Comment on Proposed Eligible Services List for the E-Rate Program, WC Docket No. 13-184, Public Notice, DA 25-921 (WCB 2025) (Funding Year 2026 Eligible Services List Public Notice).
3/ Ensuring Children's Safe Use of Screens and E-Rate Funded Services; Modernizing the E-Rate Program for Schools and Libraries, Establishing the Emergency Connectivity Fund to Close the Homework Gap, Promoting Fair and Open Competitive Bidding in the E-Rate Program; WC Docket Nos. 26-133, et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 26-41,at para. 84 (2026) (Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking).
4/ Id.
5/ Id.
6/ Id.
7/ Id.
8/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.419.
9/ Documents will generally be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
10/ 47 CFR Sec.Sec. 1.1200 et seq.
11/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.1206(b).
12/ 47 CFR Sec. 1.49(f).
* * *
Original text plus attachment here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-647A1.pdf
FCC Enforcement Bureau Reminds Multichannel Video Program Distributor of 2026 FCC Form-396 Deadline
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau issued the following notice (Docket No.: DA 26-590):
* * *
Pursuant to section 76.77 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec. 76.77, a multichannel video program distributor (MVPD) employment unit with six or more full-time employees must file an FCC Form 396-C, Multichannel Video Programming Distributor EEO Program Annual Report, by September 30 each year. By this Notice, we remind MVPDs of this recurring obligation. The Form 396-C must be submitted via the EEO filing portal in the Cable Operations and Licensing System
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau issued the following notice (Docket No.: DA 26-590):
* * *
Pursuant to section 76.77 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Sec. 76.77, a multichannel video program distributor (MVPD) employment unit with six or more full-time employees must file an FCC Form 396-C, Multichannel Video Programming Distributor EEO Program Annual Report, by September 30 each year. By this Notice, we remind MVPDs of this recurring obligation. The Form 396-C must be submitted via the EEO filing portal in the Cable Operations and Licensing System(COALS), which can be accessed at https://fccprod.servicenowservices.com/coals./1
Additionally, we identify in the following pages those employment units that must complete the Supplemental Investigation Sheet (SIS) of the Form 396-C this year. Moreover, Section I of the COALS Form 396-C, labeled "Supplemental Investigation Sheet", automatically displays a check mark for those filers that are required to submit the SIS. SIS filers should also take note of the following requirements:
* Part I: One job description must be provided for this category: Technicians
* Part II: Only questions 4 , 5, and 6 must be answered.
* Part III: The employment unit's 2025 EEO Public File Report/2 covering the previous 12 months (2025-2026), must be attached.
Questions concerning the Form 396-C can be directed to EEO staff at EB-EEO@fcc.gov or (202) 418-1450. For technical assistance with COALS, please contact coals_help@fcc.gov and for help with CORES matters, direct questions to COREShelp@fcc.gov.
* * *
FCC NOTICE REQUIRED BY THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT
We have estimated that each response to this collection of information will take from 0.166 to 2.5 hours. Our estimate includes the time to read the instructions, look through existing records, gather and maintain the required data, and actually complete and review the form or response. If you have any comments on this burden estimate, or on how we can improve the collection and reduce the burden it causes you, please e-mail them to pra@fcc.gov or send them to the Federal Communications Commission, AMD-PERM, Paperwork Reduction Project (3060-1033), Washington, DC 20554. Please DO NOT SEND COMPLETED APPLICATIONS TO THIS ADDRESS. Remember - you are not required to respond to a collection of information sponsored by the Federal government, and the government may not conduct or sponsor this collection, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number or if we fail to provide you with this notice. This collection has been assigned an OMB control number of 3060-1033.
THE FOREGOING NOTICE IS REQUIRED BY THE PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995, P.L. 104-13, OCTOBER 1, 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
* * *
Footnotes:
1/ Please note that COALS requires a Commission Registration System (CORES) username and password to which authority for one or more Federal Registration Numbers (FRNs) has been delegated. To manage CORES usernames and passwords, please visit https://apps.fcc.gov/cores/userLogin.do. For additional information regarding FRNs and the CORES system, please visit https://www.fcc.gov/licensing-databases/commission-registration-system-fcc.
2/ See 47 CFR Sec. 76.1703 of the Commission's rules for information regarding the annual EEO Public File Report.
* * *
Original text plus attachment here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-590A1.pdf
EEOC Sues Paycom for Disability Discrimination
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Sues Paycom for Disability Discrimination
*
Federal suit alleges software company fired employee rather than providing reasonable accommodation for a food allergy
OKLAHOMA CITY -Paycom Payroll, LLC, an Oklahoma software company specializing in payroll and human capital software, violated federal law when it failed to provide effective reasonable accommodations to an employee with a life-threatening food allergy and fired her instead, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
EEOC Sues Paycom for Disability Discrimination
*
Federal suit alleges software company fired employee rather than providing reasonable accommodation for a food allergy
OKLAHOMA CITY -Paycom Payroll, LLC, an Oklahoma software company specializing in payroll and human capital software, violated federal law when it failed to provide effective reasonable accommodations to an employee with a life-threatening food allergy and fired her instead, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(EEOC) charged in a lawsuit announced today.
The EEOC's suit said that shortly after being hired, an employee with a severe allergy repeatedly suffered anaphylactic reactions from exposure to food brought in by coworkers. Although she promptly informed supervisors and human resources of her condition and submitted medical documentation recommending she work in a secluded space or from home, Paycom provided only limited temporary workspace adjustments which failed to provide an effective accommodation. It did not notify nearby employees to avoid bringing the allergen to the workspace and declined to allow her to work remotely despite having established policies permitting the practice.
The employee continued to experience multiple allergic reactions -including two requiring ambulance transport to the hospital -when exposed to food in nearby breakrooms and hallways. The day after her most severe reaction in June 2024, the company terminated her, stating it could not accommodate her disability, according to the EEOC's complaint.
"Employers have a legal obligation to explore and provide reasonable accommodations for workers with disabilities -especially when the potential consequences of inaction are life-threatening," said Andrea G. Baran, regional attorney for the EEOC's St. Louis District. "No employee should be forced to choose between their health and their livelihood."
Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires the accommodation of disabilities absent undue hardship, and prohibits employers from discharging an employee because of their disability or because they requested an accommodation. The EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. Paycom Payroll, LLC, Case No. 5:26-cv-01622-R) in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its administrative conciliation process.
David S. Davis, director of the EEOC's St. Louis District, said, "Federal law requires employers to engage in an interactive process and consider reasonable solutions. The EEOC will continue to enforce protections ensuring that individuals with disabilities are not excluded from the workplace because of unsupported assumptions or insufficient effort."
For more information on disability discrimination, please visit https://www.eeoc.gov/disability-discrimination.
The EEOC's St. Louis District Office has jurisdiction over discrimination charges and agency litigation in Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska 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/eeoc-sues-paycom-disability-discrimination
Supreme Court finds limits on coordinated party expenditures unconstitutional in NRSC vs. FEC
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news:
* * *
Supreme Court finds limits on coordinated party expenditures unconstitutional in NRSC v. FEC (609 U.S. ____(2026))
*
On June 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Election Campaign Act 's (the Act) political party coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Background
The Act provides that national party committees and state party committees may make special expenditures in connection with the general election campaigns of federal
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following news:
* * *
Supreme Court finds limits on coordinated party expenditures unconstitutional in NRSC v. FEC (609 U.S. ____(2026))
*
On June 30, 2026, the United States Supreme Court held that the Federal Election Campaign Act 's (the Act) political party coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Background
The Act provides that national party committees and state party committees may make special expenditures in connection with the general election campaigns of federalcandidates. These coordinated party expenditures do not count against the contribution limits but are subject to a different set of limits under the Act. These inflation-adjusted limits are based on the office sought and the relevant voting-age population.
On November 4, 2022, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC), then-Senator J.D. Vance, and then U.S. Representative Steven Chabot (collectively plaintiffs), filed suit against the Commission in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio alleging that the Act's limits on coordinated party expenditures, including those under 52 U.S.C. SS 30116(d), violate the First Amendment.
On January 19, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio certified to the en banc court of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit a constitutional challenge to the Act's coordinated party expenditure limits.
On September 5, 2024, the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed that the Act's limits on coordinated party expenditures do not violate the First Amendment either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with "party coordinated communications." In reaching this decision, the Appeals Court relied on the Supreme Court's 2001 decision in FEC v. Colo. Republican Fed. Campaign Comm., 533 U.S. 431 (2001) ( Colorado II ) Although the plaintiffs argued that the law and facts have changed since 2001, making Colorado II no longer binding on lower courts, the court concluded that the "key reality is that the Supreme Court has not overruled the 2001 Colorado decision or the deferential review it applied to these provisions of the Act. In a hierarchical legal system, we must follow that decision and thus must deny the plaintiffs' First Amendment facial and as applied challenges." The plaintiffs appealed this decision to the United States Supreme Court.
Analysis
The Court noted that the First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." The Court has previously ruled that the First Amendment's protection of free speech has its "fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office" and that, with respect to campaign related spending, "spending money on one's own speech must be permitted." Thus, the Court has determined that political parties, candidates, private individuals, and outside groups may make unlimited independent expenditures during political campaigns.
In Colorado II, the Court justified limitations on spending coordinated by a party committee with its candidates in part to curb a donor's "undue influence on an officeholder's judgment, and the appearance of such influence." In NRSC, the Court's opinion stated that in subsequent cases, including McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm'n, 572 U. S. 185, 210 (2014) and Federal Election Comm'n v. Ted Cruz for Senate, 596 U. S. 289 (2022), it "squarely rejected undue influence as a permissible basis for the Government to regulate campaign finances and limit political speech" and now recognizes "only one legitimate governmental interest for restricting campaign finances: preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption." Additionally, the only specific type of corruption that may be targeted is quid pro quo corruption - contributions in exchange for official action
Colorado II 's finding also relied on an anti-circumvention rationale - that an individual donor that wants to donate to a candidate in exchange for official action might give a candidate's political party a large contribution in excess of the limits on a direct contribution to a candidate. The party could then spend that money in coordination with that candidate's campaign. However, the NRSC Court said that in McCutcheon, the Court found that other provisions of the Act service the Government's anti-circumvention rationale. First, the Court said, the earmarking provisions of the Act treat an individual's contribution to a party that are "in any way earmarked or otherwise directed through an intermediary or conduit" to a candidate as contributions to that candidate and subject to the limits on candidate contributions. Second, the Court said, the disclosure provisions of the Act require candidates and political parties to publicly disclose the contributions they receive and their spending on campaign activities. In McCutcheon, the Court found that disclosure has become a much stronger anti-circumvention tool over time because 'modern technology' provides a 'particularly effective means of arming the voting public with information.'"
Likewise, in this case, the Court found that this combination of the base contribution limits on candidates along with earmarking and disclosure rules "together service the Government's anti-circumvention interests here - without unduly restricting core political party speech."
Therefore, the Court overruled Colorado II and held that the Act's limits on coordinated party expenditures violate the First Amendment. Accordingly, the court reversed the judgment of the Appeals Court and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Court's opinion.
Resources
* NRSC v. FEC litigation page
* Supreme Court issues opinion in National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. FEC, et al.
***
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/supreme-court-finds-limits-on-coordinated-party-expenditures-unconstitutional-in-nrsc-v-fec-609-us-____2026/
CPSC Convenes National Roundtable on Reversing Childhood Drowning Trends
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
CPSC Convenes National Roundtable on Reversing Childhood Drowning Trends
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), under the leadership of Acting Chairman Peter A. Feldman, convened a national roundtable this week to examine strategies for reducing childhood drowning deaths and injuries. The discussion brought together leading advocates, standards developers, industry representatives, researchers, and other stakeholders to identify practical, evidence-based approaches to reduce childhood
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The Consumer Product Safety Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
CPSC Convenes National Roundtable on Reversing Childhood Drowning Trends
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), under the leadership of Acting Chairman Peter A. Feldman, convened a national roundtable this week to examine strategies for reducing childhood drowning deaths and injuries. The discussion brought together leading advocates, standards developers, industry representatives, researchers, and other stakeholders to identify practical, evidence-based approaches to reduce childhooddrowning.
Participants included former CPSC Commissioner Doug Dziak, Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-FL), representatives from the YMCA, Airbnb, the Pool & Hot Tub Alliance, Abbey's Hope, the International Code Council, the ZAC Foundation, safety expert Alan Korn, and independent researcher Carol Pollack-Nelson.
Drowning remains the leading cause of death for children ages 1 to 4 and the second-leading cause of unintentional injury and death among children overall. Acting Chairman Feldman convened the roundtable to assess the effectiveness of current drowning prevention efforts, identify gaps, and explore opportunities to reverse these tragic trends.
"Today's conversation is not the end of this effort. It is the beginning," said Acting Chairman Peter A. Feldman.
"Childhood drowning demands renewed attention, fresh thinking, and an unwavering commitment to results. We heard valuable ideas about engineering solutions, public education, product safety, partnerships, voluntary standards, and emerging technologies. We also identified important gaps that deserve continued attention."
Throughout the discussion, participants emphasized the importance of strengthening collaboration across government, industry, nonprofits, and standards organizations. Topics included engineering controls, public education, data-driven messaging, and opportunities to better engage pediatricians in communicating water safety and drowning prevention to families.
The roundtable is part of CPSC's broader effort to strengthen drowning prevention and improve outcomes for children and families nationwide.
* * *
Read Acting Chairman Peter A. Feldman's opening remarks (https://www.cpsc.gov/About-CPSC/Chairman/Peter-A-Feldman/Speech/Remarks-of-Acting-Chairman-Peter-A-Feldman-at-the-National-Roundtable-on-Reversing-Childhood-Drowning).
Watch the National Roundtable on Reversing Childhood Drowning Trends (https://youtu.be/gMKXOQcTlaw?si=nt2MD6ljOnHLcMAn).
***
Original text here: https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2026/CPSC-Convenes-National-Roundtable-on-Reversing-Childhood-Drowning-Trends
SEC Issues Litigation Action Involving Charles E. Jones
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 5:24-cv-01560-JPC; N.D. Ohio filed Sept. 12, 2024) involving Charles E. Jones:
* * *
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on June 27, 2026, the Honorable J. Philip Calabrese, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, granted a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Charles E. Jones.
On September 12, 2024, the SEC filed a complaint against Jones, the former CEO of FirstEnergy Corp.
In granting the motion to dismiss, the court found that the Commission's
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, July 1 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 5:24-cv-01560-JPC; N.D. Ohio filed Sept. 12, 2024) involving Charles E. Jones:
* * *
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that on June 27, 2026, the Honorable J. Philip Calabrese, United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, granted a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Charles E. Jones.
On September 12, 2024, the SEC filed a complaint against Jones, the former CEO of FirstEnergy Corp.
In granting the motion to dismiss, the court found that the Commission'scomplaint, as alleged, did not state a claim against Jones for violations of federal securities laws.
For further information, see Litigation Release No. 26105 (https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26105).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26578
FCC Threatens Total Network Block Against Digital Solutions Over Illegal Robocalls
WASHINGTON, June 30 -- The Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau has issued an "initial determination order" to a voice service provider following an investigation into automated phone traffic. The federal agency released an Initial Determination Order and Order to Show Cause (EB Docket No. 22-174) targeting Digital Solutions Inc., Denver, Colorado, warning that the business faces a complete shutdown of its network access within 30 days if it fails to fix regulatory compliance deficiencies.
The enforcement action establishes that the provider allegedly allowed its infrastructure
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 30 -- The Federal Communications Commission Enforcement Bureau has issued an "initial determination order" to a voice service provider following an investigation into automated phone traffic. The federal agency released an Initial Determination Order and Order to Show Cause (EB Docket No. 22-174) targeting Digital Solutions Inc., Denver, Colorado, warning that the business faces a complete shutdown of its network access within 30 days if it fails to fix regulatory compliance deficiencies.
The enforcement action establishes that the provider allegedly allowed its infrastructureto route thousands of illegal, prerecorded robocalls targeting wireless consumers across the country. Under expanding federal telecommunications rules, the enforcement agency holds authority to isolate entire networks from the domestic communications system if providers fail to aggressively police their own clients.
Federal investigators initiated the probe after tracking a flood of unauthorized, automated transmissions to cell phone numbers between May 6, 2025, and July 8, 2025. The Industry Traceback Group, an organization tasked by the industry to trace the origin of automated phone abuse, investigated 51 separate calls that used pre-recorded scripts without consumer consent.
The targeted transmissions targeted regular citizens with messages stating they were prequalified or eligible for financial relief packages. The automated scripts told recipients to contact a loan processing team and directed them to press two to speak with an underwriting department to finalize loan agreements.
The industry group verified that the infrastructure of Digital Solutions Inc. originated every single one of those suspect communications. When presented with the investigative tracking data, the corporate leadership confirmed its system routed the traffic and pointed to three specific corporate customers as the direct source of the automated campaigns.
The administrative record indicates the federal agency initiated formal enforcement on April 2, 2026, by sending a Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic via certified mail to the company headquarters, alongside electronic copies delivered to contacts listed in government tracking files. The initial notification laid out explicit legal demands requiring the company to conduct an immediate internal probe into the identified phone traffic, enact automated blocking filters against the problematic sources within 14 days, prevent any substantially identical automated text or voice campaigns from using the network, and deliver a full investigative report back to federal authorities detailing corporate corrective strategies.
The company replied via email on May 5, 2026, asserting that it had addressed the issue months prior by vacating the customer profiles responsible for the transmissions, claiming no further automated messages occurred past August 12, 2025. However, federal enforcement officials determined the corporate response fell short of legal obligations. The agency found that the provider failed to supply the mandatory internal investigation data, omitted the required legal certifications promising permanent blocking of the illegal campaigns, and offered no operational roadmap explaining how it intends to block similar illicit traffic going forward.
Beyond the failure to handle the illicit automated traffic, federal regulators uncovered issues with the firm's filings in the Robocall Mitigation Database. The system serves as a public repository established in 2021 to ensure market transparency and force telecommunications firms to verify their identity verification frameworks.
Every intermediate and origin voice provider must maintain an active, accurate profile in this system, certified under penalty of perjury by a corporate officer. The provider claimed full deployment of the STIR/SHAKEN caller identification framework, an industry-standard cryptographic technology that signs phone calls to verify that the incoming number displayed on a consumer caller ID screen matches the actual sender.
The agency found that while the company certified complete network-wide caller identification implementation, its own attached operational mitigation documents revealed it omitted portions of its network. Furthermore, physical industry tracking records established that the firm failed to attach any verification tokens to at least 10 specific calls routed through its Session Initiation Protocol systems.
While the firm submitted an altered mitigation plan on April 3, 2026, which resolved the text contradictions regarding its technology adoption, it ignored demands to explain why the specific unverified calls escaped authentication, rendering its database status deficient.
The enforcement agency has issued a strict 14-day window from the release date of the Initial Determination Order and Order to Show Cause (EB Docket No. 22-174) for the company to supply complete proof of systemic correction. If the firm does not satisfy the requirements, the federal government will proceed to issue a Final Determination Order.
The penalties for non-compliance are severe. Once a Final Determination Order drops, every immediate network operator directly connected to the company must cut connections and block all traffic from the firm within 30 days. Furthermore, if individual downstream carriers determine independent of the agency that the company failed to handle the problems within 48 hours or allowed suspect entities to lease infrastructure, those carriers can block traffic even faster. Finally, failure to fix the verification issues will trigger total removal from the federal database. By law, intermediate and primary telecom networks are blocked from accepting traffic from any domestic service provider whose certification is wiped from the database.
"Removal of the company certification from the database will require all voice service providers, gateway providers, and intermediate providers to cease accepting calls directly from the business," the enforcement agency noted in the regulatory filing.
If expelled, the firm cannot re-register or file a new database profile without explicit joint approval from both the Enforcement Bureau and the Wireline Competition Bureau.
The corporate leadership, headed by Chief Executive Officer Richard Anderson in Denver, Colorado, must file all official evidence directly to the Office of the Secretary in Washington. Corporate compliance managers must deliver copies to the Telecommunications Consumers Division Chief Daniel Stepanicich and Attorney Advisor Samuel Hanks to prevent network blocking. The order, executed under the authority of Enforcement Bureau Chief Patrick Webre, is effective immediately upon its release. The outcome of the 14-day window will determine whether the carrier remains connected to American consumers or faces permanent isolation from the public telephone system.
-- Vidhi Gianani, Targeted News Service
* * *
Original text here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-643A1.pdf
SEC Obtains Final Judgment Against Four Entities and Two Individuals in Alleged Relationship Investment Scam
WASHINGTON, June 30 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 2:24-cv-06517-SJB-ST; E.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 17, 2024):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. NanoBit Limited, et al., No 2:24-cv-06517-SJB-ST (E.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 17, 2024)
On June 16, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a final judgment by default against four entities and two individuals in connection with previously filed charges, which stemmed from a relationship investment scam involving the alleged fake crypto asset trading platform NanoBit.
The
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 30 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following litigation release (No. 2:24-cv-06517-SJB-ST; E.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 17, 2024):
* * *
Securities and Exchange Commission v. NanoBit Limited, et al., No 2:24-cv-06517-SJB-ST (E.D.N.Y. filed Sept. 17, 2024)
On June 16, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York entered a final judgment by default against four entities and two individuals in connection with previously filed charges, which stemmed from a relationship investment scam involving the alleged fake crypto asset trading platform NanoBit.
TheSEC's complaint, filed on September 17, 2024, alleged that the defendants, working with other scheme participants, solicited investors via social media apps, lied to them to gain their trust and confidence, and then stole their money. According to the complaint, from at least September 2023 to at least June 2024, scheme participants posed as financial industry professionals in WhatsApp groups to build investors' trust and then encouraged investors to put their money into the supposed NanoBit crypto asset trading platform. In order to persuade investors that the platform was safe, NanoBit allegedly falsely claimed that its affiliate, NanobitUS Securities, was a SEC-registered broker. The supposed financial professionals allegedly then promoted fake initial coin offerings as a way for the investors to make substantial returns. But, as alleged, no transactions took place on the NanoBit platform and investors' funds in fact went to scheme participants who wired more than $2 million to bank accounts in Hong Kong and misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars' worth of investors' crypto assets.
The final judgment permanently enjoins the defendants from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. It also orders NanoBit Limited to pay disgorgement of $532,649, prejudgment interest of $81,957, and a penalty of $1,182,251; Radiant Horizons to pay a penalty of $1,182,251; Zhao Deli to pay a penalty of $1,182,251; Sweet Karma to pay a penalty of $1,182,251; Liu to pay disgorgement of $60,603, prejudgment interest of $9,485, and a penalty of $50,000; and Zhao to pay disgorgement of $4,500, prejudgment interest of $704, and a penalty of $50,000.
The SEC's litigation was conducted by Todd Brody and Jeremy Brandt, with assistance from Neil Hendelman and supervised by Alexander Vasilescu, Rebecca Reilly, and Sheldon L. Pollock, all of the SEC's New York Regional Office. The litigation was also assisted by Nicholas Bohmann of the Division of Enforcement's Cyber and Emerging Technologies Unit.
The SEC's Office of Investor Education and Assistance has issued an investor alert warning investors that fraudsters may use popular social media platforms and messaging apps to lure investors into scams, and never to rely solely on information from group chats in making investment decisions. The SEC encourages investors to use Investor.gov to check the background of anyone offering or selling them an investment.
* * *
Resources
* Final Judgment (https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/litreleases/2026/judg26576.pdf)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26576
FTC Requires Amazon to Pay $2.25 Million to Resolve Charges It Knowingly Violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
WASHINGTON, June 30 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Requires Amazon to Pay $2.25 Million to Resolve Charges It Knowingly Violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
*
Amazon will pay $2.25 million in civil penalties to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the online retail giant knowingly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by refusing to provide transaction records to consumers whose personal information was used by identity thieves to commit fraud.
The complaint, filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referral
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 30 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:
* * *
FTC Requires Amazon to Pay $2.25 Million to Resolve Charges It Knowingly Violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
*
Amazon will pay $2.25 million in civil penalties to settle Federal Trade Commission allegations that the online retail giant knowingly violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) by refusing to provide transaction records to consumers whose personal information was used by identity thieves to commit fraud.
The complaint, filed by the Department of Justice upon notification and referralfrom the FTC, alleged that in numerous instances, Amazon.com Inc. failed to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, which requires companies to, within 30 days of a consumer's request, provide victims of identity theft with application and business transaction records about fraudulent transactions made in their names. According to the complaint, Amazon had no written policy to respond to Section 609(e) requests until early 2025, after it learned of the FTC's investigation, despite prior outreach from FTC staff advising the company to review its compliance with Section 609(e).
"Amazon often put identity theft victims through a Kafkaesque ordeal by demanding they identify the thief who stole their information before Amazon would release the records the law entitles them to-records that could help victims protect themselves and recover from the fraudulent conduct," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The FTC will not allow companies to simply ignore their legal obligations, especially those designed to support and protect identity theft victims."
Many consumers who contacted Amazon to report fraud were told by its customer service agents that they could not provide the requested records for "security" or "privacy" reasons, the complaint alleged. For example, one consumer reported that when they contacted Amazon seeking business records related to unauthorized charges stemming from a fraudulent account, a company representative said they could not share details about the other account that had used the consumer's credit card for "security reasons" unless the consumer guessed the name on the account (the name used by the identity thief), which the consumer was unable to do after making 30 attempts.
The complaint alleged that in other instances, Amazon agents told consumers they were not able to access the requested records. Amazon even refused to provide application and business transaction records to law enforcement agencies who had been authorized to, and who did, submit requests to Amazon on behalf of consumers who were victims of identity theft. Some frustrated consumers resorted to sending copies of the FCRA and FTC guidance to Amazon in hopes of receiving the requested records, but Amazon still failed to comply with the law.
The complaint also alleged that in some cases where Amazon ultimately provided requested records, it failed to respond to consumers within the 30-day timeframe required by the FCRA.
In addition to the $2.25 million civil penalty-a record for a Section 609(e) violation-the proposed order will prohibit Amazon from failing to comply with Section 609(e) of the FCRA, requiring the company to provide the records lawfully requested by identity theft victims and law enforcement agencies acting on their behalf. The order also requires Amazon to provide notice to consumers about how identity theft victims can request records under the FCRA. The company must also contact consumers who had requested records since April 2024 from Amazon but did not receive them to inform these consumers that it may have additional records and that the consumers may request those records from Amazon.
This is the second case the FTC has brought using its authority under Section 609(e) of the FCRA. The FTC announced its first case involving a violation of Section 609(e) of the FCRA in 2020 against Kohl's Department Stores Inc.
The Commission voted 2-0 to authorize the staff to refer the complaint to the DOJ and to approve the proposed stipulated order. The DOJ filed the complaint and final order on behalf of the Commission in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has "reason to believe" that the named defendants are violating or are about to violate the law and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. Stipulated final orders have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.
The lead attorneys on this matter include Whitney Moore, Gorana Neskovic and Jamie Hine in the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/06/ftc-requires-amazon-pay-225-million-resolve-charges-it-knowingly-violated-fair-credit-reporting-act
Agencies Release List of Distressed or Underserved Nonmetropolitan Middle-Income Geographies
WASHINGTON, June 30 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release:
* * *
Agencies Release List of Distressed or Underserved Nonmetropolitan Middle-Income Geographies
*
WASHINGTON - Federal bank regulatory agencies today released the 2026 list of certain geographies where certain bank activities are eligible for Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) credit.
Under the CRA, the agencies assess a bank's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations. The list released
... Show Full Article
WASHINGTON, June 30 -- The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued the following news release:
* * *
Agencies Release List of Distressed or Underserved Nonmetropolitan Middle-Income Geographies
*
WASHINGTON - Federal bank regulatory agencies today released the 2026 list of certain geographies where certain bank activities are eligible for Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) credit.
Under the CRA, the agencies assess a bank's record of meeting the credit needs of its entire community, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, consistent with safe and sound operations. The list releasedby the agencies includes distressed or underserved nonmetropolitan middle-income geographies where revitalization or stabilization activities are eligible to receive CRA consideration. The designations reflect local economic conditions, including unemployment, poverty, and population changes. Previous years' lists and criteria for designating these areas are available here.
Revitalization or stabilization activities in these geographies are eligible to receive CRA consideration under the community development definition for 12 months after publication of the current list. As with past lists, the agencies apply a one-year lag period for geographies that were included in 2025 but are no longer designated as distressed or underserved in the current list.
Attachment(s)
2026 List of Distressed or Underserved Nonmetropolitan Middle-Income Geographies (PDF)
Source Information and Methodology (PDF)
Contact(s)
FDIC: Julianne Fisher Breitbeil, (202) 898-6895
FRB: Chelsea Grate, (202) 452-2955
OCC: Monica McCoy, (202) 649-6870
***
Original text here: https://www.fdic.gov/news/press-releases/2026/agencies-release-list-distressed-or-underserved-nonmetropolitan-middle
