Netflix blames its content slate, regional price increases and a "pull-forward effect" of its strong Q1 growth for the miss.Technologyread more
Netflix lost paid U.S. subscribers for the first time in eight years and fell below analyst estimates for international subscriber growth.Tech Driversread more
Despite a disappointing earnings report, Wall Street analysts are sticking by the stock and looking ahead to the third quarter.Marketsread more
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says if the call goes well, he would expect in-person meetings to take place.Marketsread more
Southwest joints United and American in taking the Boeing 737 Max out of its schedules through early November with no end in sight to the federally-mandated grounding of the...Airlinesread more
Revenue of $10.24 billion exceeded the consensus estimate by almost $250 million.Financeread more
The strengthening of the president's formidable campaign war chest has led his organization, along with the Republican National Committee, to raise over $100 million in the...2020 Electionsread more
The three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circut also upheld the more than $7.7 million in fines and restitution that a judge imposed on Shkreli last...Biotech and Pharmaceuticalsread more
Raymond James upgraded Apple and said its most recent checks show Apple is preparing to bring a 5G iPhone to a wider range of models than previously thought.Marketsread more
Toys R Us is opening two permanent stores in November — at Simon Property Group's Galleria mall in Houston and at Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield's Garden State Plaza mall in...Retailread more
Philip Morris International beats second-quarter earnings and revenue estimates and hikes its full-year forecast as its new tobacco products gain momentum.Health and Scienceread more
An unusual coalition of business, labor and immigration rights groups wants to change the way federal regulators interpret their own rules — but that effort has sparked fears that consumer and worker protections could be gutted in the process.
The fight is due to play out in a Supreme Court argument set for Wednesday. The case involves James Kisor, a Marine veteran who is demanding that the Department of Veterans Affairs provide him with retroactive disability payments for post-traumatic stress disorder he developed while serving in brutal battles in Vietnam.
The VA argues that, under its interpretation of its regulations, it should only be required to pay benefits going back to 2006 — not the 1980s, as Kisor has asked.
Thanks to a 1997 Supreme Court ruling, courts generally let agencies interpret the meaning of their own regulations, as long as the interpretation is reasonable. That principle is known as "Auer deference" after the case Auer v. Robbins.
But groups including the AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce, and the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation have weighed in on the case, asking the nation's top court to disavow Auer deference, which they say gives federal regulators way too much power to dictate how they enforce their own rules.
Those opposing Auer say it forces businesses, immigrants and workers to read though poorly organized and obscure government websites, court dockets, and elsewhere simply to understand what rules apply to them, with virtually no chance for court review.
The National Immigrant Justice Center notes that the federal government often invokes Auer deference in immigration disputes. In a brief, the group said it can make deportation proceedings unaccountable and byzantine.
And business and labor groups say it makes rules governing employment difficult or impossible to understand, and leaves them subject to the fickle whims of political appointees.
"Their position is a very consistent one, which is: The regulated community wants predictability," said Paul Hughes, a partner at Mayer Brown who is arguing the case for Kisor.
The Trump administration, which is defending the Department of Veterans Affairs, does not want to overturn Auer. Instead, it wants the Supreme Court to narrow how broadly Auer and a related past ruling can be applied.
Some academics, court observers, and the Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, see a nefarious conservative legal strategy at play in the case.
According to them, the court's decision to hear it was part of an orchestrated attack on the levers of government power that protect consumers and keep businesses from exploiting their workers.
"This case comes before the Court as part of a larger strategy to disable public interest regulation," Whitehouse wrote in a brief with the court.
The senator, once Rhode Island's attorney general, wrote that the case must be "seen in the larger context of the age-old contest between powerful influencers who seek to bend government to their will, and a general public that counts on government to protect it from the influencers."
Conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas have been sharply critical of Auer.
Gillian Metzger, a professor at Columbia Law School, has written that the case is "troubling" because it could foretell how the court under Chief Justice John Roberts, with a fortified conservative majority, may wage a constitutional attack on the administrative state.
A particularly worrisome sign, according to Metzger, is that the case at hand doesn't have the hallmarks of government overreach that Auer's critics are most energized about.
"The regulatory interpretation at issue in Kisor was reached through formal adjudication, with ample process and two levels of well-justified administrative decisions," Metzger wrote.
Critics also point to recent research that shows that, contrary to conservative attacks, government agencies generally do not use Auer to bolster their own power by issuing vague regulations.
And they say that, because much of the law that applies to regulation is interconnected, any broad ruling striking down Auer could have unintended consequences.
"Cooking up a new approach to precedent yields a toxic brew that can be harmful even to its creators," wrote Adrian Vermeule, a professor at Harvard Law School.
A decision in the case is expected by late June.