Federation of Americans for Consumer Choice Inc. et al v. United States Department of Labor et al
Case Number:
3:22-cv-00243
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Other Statutes: Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Judge:
Firms
Companies
Government Agencies
Sectors & Industries:
-
July 10, 2025
Texas Judge Partially Voids DOL's ERISA Rollover Rule
A Texas federal judge partially invalidated an investment advice regulation from President Donald Trump's first administration involving employee retirement savings and rollover transactions, ruling the U.S. Department of Labor exceeded its authority when it handed down a new interpretation of federal benefits law.
-
July 17, 2024
Chevron Repeal Doesn't Impact Benefits Rule Fight, DOL Says
The U.S. Supreme Court's rollback of Chevron deference doesn't boost the likelihood of success for a trade group's claims that a U.S. Department of Labor regulation unlawfully expanded the pool of retirement advisers with obligations under federal benefits law, the agency told a Texas federal judge Wednesday.
-
June 30, 2023
Judge Says Parts Of DOL's Rollover Advice Exemption Invalid
A federal magistrate judge in Texas on Friday recommended partially invalidating a Trump-era investment advice rule involving employee retirement savings and rollover transactions, finding a new interpretation from the U.S. Department of Labor exceeded its statutory authority.
-
September 08, 2022
DOL Seeks To Wrap Up Fiduciary Rule Battle In Texas
The U.S. Department of Labor asked a Texas federal judge to toss a challenge to a 2020 rule critics say would unlawfully expand which retirement advisers qualify as fiduciaries with obligations under federal benefits law, arguing the regulations were a reasonable interpretation of federal benefits law.
-
February 03, 2022
Texas Suit Seeks To Invalidate DOL Fiduciary Rule Rewrite
A group of licensed independent insurance agents and a trade group in Texas sued the U.S. Department of Labor over a Trump-era investment advice rule involving employee retirement savings, arguing the regulation advances the same policies that the Fifth Circuit invalidated in 2016.