Business

Supreme Court set for pivotal cases that could claw back federal administrative power on January 14, 2024 at 10:00 pm Business News | The Hill

Published

2 years ago

January 14, 2024

The Supreme Court will hear a dispute this week that could lead to a decision dramatically clawing back the power of federal agencies, putting a number of consumer and environmental protections in jeopardy.

At issue is whether courts should defer to interpretation by federal agencies when a law could have multiple meanings, a practice known as Chevron deference.

In practical terms, this means the court is considering whether to weaken the ability of a presidential administration to put forward regulations meant to counter pollution or climate change or to protect consumers without clearer authorization from Congress.

Such a feat would advance a long-sought goal of anti-regulatory interests, whose hopes are bolstered by some conservative justices’ recent skepticisms of Chevron. It is one of multiple, major cases at the high court this term implicating the administrative state.

“This is a campaign to weaken government’s ability to protect you from these kinds of modern dangers whether they’re to your health through unsafe air or water or … through unsafe drugs or food or whether it’s your financial security,” said David Doniger, senior strategic director for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s (NRDC) climate and clean energy program.

“Those protections require a government with some capacity to effectively respond, and this case is about destroying that capability,” Doniger added.

The Chevron deference originated from a case argued by Doniger himself during the Reagan administration.

A bedrock of administrative law, the nearly 40-year-old precedent has given federal agencies wide latitude to enact regulations in areas where a law set by Congress was ambiguous.

Anne Gorsuch was then-President Reagan’s first Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator when the challenge was made by Doniger and NRDC. Her son, Justice Neil Gorsuch, now may be a part of the majority that demolishes the Chevron standard.

In two separate cases set to be argued Wednesday, the justices will hear challenges to the same fishery rule that have become the most promising vehicles yet to overrule Chevron.

Gorsuch and fellow conservative Justice Clarence Thomas have publicly cast doubts about the precedent’s future. Justice Brett Kavanaugh is also viewed as a skeptic, while the views of some of the newer justices, particularly Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Ketanji Brown Jackson, are more unclear.

For months, the court was set to hear just one of the cases, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a lawsuit brought by four family-owned Atlantic herring fisheries represented by conservative legal heavyweight Paul Clement.

But Jackson recused herself from that case, as she had sat on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals when it previously heard the dispute.

The court later added a second, near-identical case, Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, in which lawyers with the conservative New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) challenged the same rule on behalf of a Rhode Island-based fishing fleet. All nine justices are expected to sit for this case.

“The court has allowed them to misuse [Chevron] in ways that makes everyone perform badly in our tripartite government,” said John Vecchione, NCLA’s senior litigation counsel who is the plaintiffs’ counsel of record.

“And the reason I say that is, it incentivizes Congress not to clearly state what they’re doing in a statute,” Vecchione added. “They put in the main points. And then they assume that whatever the administration does, if they like it, they can take credit; if they don’t like it, they can say, ‘ah, we could never know that was going to happen!’”

Defenders of the Chevron deference argue that it makes sense: When the law is unclear, federal agencies, teeming with experts, should get to make the decision.

“What the doctrine recognizes is that within the government there are hard-working people who have developed an expertise on whether food is safe, on how you limit pollution from power plants, on how you ensure that our airplanes and automobiles are safe,” said Andrew Mergen, faculty director of Harvard Law School’s Emmett Environmental Law and Policy Clinic.

“The doctrine promotes a regime … where experts do the gap filling and the alternative proposed by the alternative to Chevron is to have judges fill that gap,” he said. “A judge who’s not trained as a pilot, I do not want flying my airplane.”

But opponents argue that it provides too much power to the executive branch and takes away from the constitutional principle of separation of powers.

“The Constitution says the judicial power is vested in … judges, and so it’s an important separation of powers principle that only judges are vested with that power,” said Thomas Berry, research fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank.

Berry said that the power to interpret the law should instead rest with judges alone.

“Congress could pass a statute that has one policy goal and then a president of a different party or of a different ideology later on could essentially reverse it,” he said. “That would be thwarting democracy. A judge’s task is to simply interpret the law faithfully.”

Michael Burger, executive director of Columbia University’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said that if Chevron is overturned, that could have a “chilling effect” on federal agencies.

“Agencies will be less willing to experiment with regulation and to seek to address emerging problems without specific direction from Congress,” he said. “It will most likely lessen the amount of regulation and the scope and extent of regulation.”

He added that at least in the short term, legal challenges to existing regulations will “probably” be more successful without deference.

The Biden administration may be the one defending the doctrine before the Supreme Court, but in theory, deference — or lack thereof — would apply equally to rules put forward by Democratic or Republican administrations.

“And boy did I enjoy it,” Eugene Scalia, former President Trump’s Labor secretary, said of Chevron in a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed.

Proponents of overruling the doctrine have noted that the Supreme Court in recent years has solidified carveouts to Chevron deference or ignored it by resolving cases on other grounds.

“The doctrine is on its last legs,” Vecchione said. “This is more to put it out of its misery than it is some sort of, ‘oh, we’ve got to take away this doctrine that’s very robust.’ I think that the court has allowed this to percolate in the various circuits, and the circuits have showed what the problem is.”

Clement, representing the other group of plaintiffs, wrote in court papers that the justices hadn’t invoked Chevron since 2016, referencing an appellate judge’s decision likening Chevron to “the-case-which-must-not-be-named,” a reference to Lord Voldemort in the “Harry Potter” series.

“Thus, the question is less whether this Court should overrule Chevron, and more whether it should let lower courts and citizens in on the news,” Clement wrote. “The reality is that Chevron has already proven itself unworkable, and its corrosive effects on our separation of powers have lingered long enough. The government’s pleas to retain this misguided and reliance-destroying doctrine fall far short of the mark.”

Energy & Environment, Business, Court Battles, Policy, Brett Kavanaugh, Chevron, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, NRDC, Supreme Court The Supreme Court will hear a dispute this week that could lead to a decision dramatically clawing back the power of federal agencies, putting a number of consumer and environmental protections in jeopardy. At issue is whether courts should defer to interpretation by federal agencies when a law could have multiple meanings, a practice known…

Business

Building a 10 Million Army: One Leader’s Mission to Save Tomorrow

Published

2 days ago

May 24, 2026

Bolanle Media Staff

Sustainability is often spoken about as if it belongs only to scientists, policy experts, or environmental activists. On the Roselyn Omaka Show, Otto Cannon makes the case that it belongs to everyone. His message is both urgent and deeply human: sustainability is not just about the environment, but about creating a world where people, planet, and profit exist in balance.

Cannon’s mission is striking in its scale. He wants to build what he calls a global army of 10 million sustainability leaders—people across industries and communities who choose to think beyond short-term gains and take responsibility for the future they are helping shape.

My biggest mission is to raise a 10 million global army of sustainability leaders.

Otto’s understanding of this work did not begin in a conference room. It began in childhood, shaped by a father who taught him to see the world’s problems as personal assignments. That early influence instilled in him the belief that real leadership means stepping forward, identifying what is broken, and dedicating yourself to fixing it.

That mindset later became deeply personal. In one of the interview’s most emotional moments, Cannon shares how the death of his dog after swallowing a plastic bottle cap changed his life. What might have seemed like an isolated tragedy became, for him, a doorway into a much larger truth: waste is never just waste when it destroys ecosystems, harms wildlife, and threatens the future.

Instead of turning away, he turned pain into action. Through his work, he helped build a recycling company that processed over 10,000 tons of plastic and supported tree-planting efforts that have already reached more than 500,000 trees. His story reflects the broader idea of sustainability leadership, which is commonly framed as the integration of environmental, social, and economic responsibility into real-world decision-making.

What makes Cannon’s perspective especially compelling is the way he challenges common misconceptions. He argues that sustainability is too often boxed into environmental language alone, when in reality it applies to every sector—fashion, construction, energy, transportation, manufacturing, and beyond. This broader understanding aligns with current sustainability leadership thinking, which emphasizes systems, collaboration, and long-term value creation across sectors.

Profit should never come at the expense of people or the planet.

That belief is central to everything Cannon describes. For him, sustainability is not anti-business. It is about designing business, innovation, and progress in a way that does not leave harm behind for future generations. A solution that helps today but creates a deeper problem tomorrow, he argues, is not truly a solution at all.

This is also the thinking behind the Global Sustainability Summit and Awards in London, where Cannon brings together leaders from government, business, and civil society to share ideas, showcase innovation, and inspire action. Cross-sector collaboration is widely recognized as a core part of effective sustainability work, especially when the goal is cultural and systemic change rather than isolated projects.

The power of Cannon’s message lies in its accessibility. He is not calling only on policymakers or executives. He is speaking to creators, founders, farmers, designers, builders, and everyday professionals—anyone who has influence over materials, waste, systems, sourcing, or the choices that shape modern life.

By the end of the conversation, one image lingers: the idea that one person is a drop of water, but many drops together can become a wave. That is the future Otto Cannon is working toward—not a movement powered by one voice, but one built by millions who decide that sustainability is not optional, but necessary.

Business

GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY SUMMIT RETURNS FOR ITS 5TH EDITION AT THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT – HOUSE OF LORDS, PALACE OF WESTMINSTER

Published

1 week ago

May 16, 2026

Bolanle Media Staff

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Theme: “People, Planet, and Profit in the Age of AI and Innovation”

London, United Kingdom — The Global Sustainability Summit (GSS) is officially back for its landmark 5th Edition, continuing its legacy as one of the leading international platforms driving sustainable development, climate action, ethical investment, innovation, and global collaboration.

Convened annually at the prestigious British Parliament, House of Lords, Palace of Westminster, by Ambassador Canon Chinenem Otto, the Summit has, over the last four years, successfully fostered international dialogue and partnerships that have contributed to the advancement of global sustainability goals, the establishment of sustainability-focused ministries, departments and policy structures across national and subnational governments, and the attraction of major investors into sustainable development projects, corporations and emerging economies.

This year’s summit, themed “People, Planet, and Profit in the Age of AI and Innovation,” will explore how emerging technologies, responsible leadership, sustainable finance, innovation, and global partnerships can shape a more inclusive, resilient and environmentally conscious future.

The 5th Edition promises to be the most impactful yet, bringing together world leaders, policymakers, diplomats, investors, academics, innovators, climate experts and youth leaders from across the globe to discuss actionable solutions toward achieving a sustainable and equitable future.

Among the distinguished speakers, delegates and honorees already lined up for the Summit are:

• His Excellency Mallam AbdulRahman AbdulRazaq — Executive Governor of Kwara State, Nigeria and Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum

• His Excellency Senator Prince Bassey Otu — Executive Governor of Cross River State, Nigeria

• Ambassador Patricia Espinosa Cantellano — Former Executive Secretary of UN Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Former Foreign Minister of Mexico

• Lord Marvin Rees, Baron Rees of Easton OBE — Member of the House of Lords, United Kingdom

• Hon. Neema K. Lugangira — Secretary-General of Women Political Leaders (WPL), Brussels and Former Member of Parliament

• Her Excellency Dr. Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah — President of the Republic of Namibia

• His Excellency Nangolo Mbumba — Former President of Namibia

• Former President of Tanzania

• Her Excellency Ambassador Professor Olufolake AbdulRazaq — First Lady of Kwara State, Nigeria and Chairperson of Nigeria Governors’ Spouses Forum

• Your Excellency Dr. Dikko Umar Radda, PhD, CON — Executive Governor of Katsina State and Chairman of the Northwest Governors Forum, Nigeria

• Hon. Sam Shafiishuna Nujoma — Governor of Khomas Region, Namibia

• H.E. Mr. Veiccoh Nghiwete — High Commissioner of the Republic of Namibia to the United Kingdom

• Her Excellency Ms. Macenje “Che Che” Mazoka — High Commissioner of Zambia to the United Kingdom

• Ms. Danielle Newman — Partner Lead, ICT, World Economic Forum

• Leanne Elliott Young — Co-founder, Institute of Digital Fashion & CommuneEast

• Ms. Chloe Russell — Producer & Presenter, Art, Science and Nature

• Professor Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger — University of Cambridge & University of Waterloo

• Dr. Alexandra R. Harrington — IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law (WCEL)

• Professor Payam Akhavan — Massey College, University of Toronto

• Mr. Mallai C. E. Sathya — President, Dravida Vetri Kazhagam and International Movement for Tamil Culture Asia

The Summit will feature high-level panel discussions, strategic investment conversations, sustainability awards, policy dialogues, innovation showcases, youth engagement sessions and international networking opportunities focused on climate resilience, ethical financing, food-water-energy sustainability, circular economy, artificial intelligence, diplomacy and sustainable development.

Speaking ahead of the Summit, Convener Ambassador Canon Chinenem Otto noted:

“As the world rapidly evolves through artificial intelligence and technological innovation, we must ensure that sustainability remains people-centered, environmentally responsible and economically inclusive. The Global Sustainability Summit continues to serve as a bridge connecting governments, institutions, innovators and investors to accelerate practical sustainability solutions globally. Our fifth edition is not only a celebration of progress made over the years, but also a renewed call for global collaboration and actionable impact toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals and Net Zero ambitions.”

The Global Sustainability Summit continues to position itself as a catalyst for transformative partnerships and sustainable global progress, reinforcing the urgent need for collective action toward a more resilient and sustainable future.

More announcements regarding additional speakers, partners and summit activities will be unveiled in the coming weeks.

Business

What the Michael Biopic Means for Every Indie Filmmaker

Published

2 weeks ago

May 10, 2026

Bolanle Media Staff

The Michael Jackson biopic Michael is more than celebrity drama; it is a real-time lesson in how legal decisions can quietly rewrite a story that millions of people will see. You do not need a $200M budget for the same forces—contracts, settlements, and rights issues—to shape or even erase key parts of your own work.

“The Michael Jackson Movie Is A HUGE HIT!” by Adam Does Movies, CC BY, via YouTube.

What Happened to Michael

The film Michael originally included a third act that addressed the 1993 child sexual abuse allegations and their impact on Jackson’s life and career. Trade reports say this version showed investigators at Neverland Ranch and dramatized the scandal as a turning point in the story. After cameras rolled, lawyers for the Jackson estate realized there was a clause in the settlement with accuser Jordan Chandler that barred any depiction or mention of him in a movie.

Because of that old agreement, the filmmakers had to remove all references to Chandler and rework the ending so the story stopped years earlier, in the late 1980s at Jackson’s commercial peak.

According to reporting, this meant roughly 22 days of reshoots, costing around 10–15 million dollars and pushing the total budget over 200 million.

Meanwhile, actress Kat Graham confirmed her portrayal of Diana Ross was cut for “legal considerations,” showing how likeness and approval issues can wipe out an entire character even after filming.

For audiences, the result is a movie that intentionally avoids one of the most controversial chapters of Jackson’s life, which some critics argue makes the portrait feel incomplete or selectively curated.

The Hidden Power of Contracts and Rights

The key detail in the Michael story is that a contract signed decades ago could dictate what present-day filmmakers are allowed to show. That settlement clause did not just affect the people who signed it; it effectively controlled the narrative of a big-budget film made years later. This is how legal documents become invisible co-authors: they quietly set boundaries around what your story can and cannot include.

Creators face similar invisible lines with:

Life-rights and defamation: If you dramatize real people, especially in a negative light, they can claim defamation or invasion of privacy if your portrayal is inaccurate or harmful.
Copyright and trademarks: Unlicensed music, clips, logos, or artwork can trigger copyright or trademark claims that block distribution or force expensive changes.
Distribution contracts: Some deals give distributors the right to re-edit, retitle, or repackage your work without your approval unless you negotiate otherwise.

Legal commentary warns that fictionalizing real events and people carries heightened risk because audiences tend to connect your dramatization back to actual individuals. That risk does not disappear just because you are “small” or “indie”; impact, not audience size, usually determines exposure.

Why This Matters for Indie Filmmakers and Creators

Independent filmmakers often choose the indie route precisely to maintain creative control, but they can face more risk if they skip legal planning. Common problems include unclear ownership of the script, missing music licenses, handshake agreements with collaborators, and no written permission to use locations or people’s likenesses. These are the kinds of issues that can derail distribution, block a streaming deal, or force last-minute cuts that fundamentally change your story.

Legal guides for indie filmmakers consistently emphasize a few realities:

You do not fully “own” your film unless you have clear contracts for writing, directing, producing, and underlying rights.
Unregistered or unlicensed creative elements (like music and logos) can make your project uninsurable or unattractive to distributors.
Fixing legal problems after the fact is almost always more expensive and limiting than planning for them at the beginning.

So when you watch Michael skip over certain events, you are seeing, in exaggerated form, the same forces that can shape an indie short, web series, documentary, or podcast episode.

Practical Legal Lessons You Can Apply Now

You do not need a law degree, but you do need a basic legal strategy for your creative work. Here are practical steps drawn from entertainment-law and indie-film resources:

Clarify who owns the story
- Use written agreements with co-writers, directors, and producers that state who owns the script and finished film.
- If your work is based on a real person or memoir, secure life-rights or written permission where appropriate, especially if the portrayal is sensitive.
Be intentional with real people and events
- When telling true or inspired-by-true stories, avoid making specific, negative claims about identifiable people unless they are well-documented and legally vetted.
- Change names, details, and circumstances enough that the person is not clearly identifiable if you do not have their cooperation.
Lock down music and visuals
- Use original scores, licensed tracks, or reputable libraries; never assume you can keep a song just because it is in a rough cut.
- Clear artwork, logos, and recognizable brands, or replace them with generic or custom-designed alternatives.

Protect yourself in contracts
- When signing any distribution or platform deal, read the clauses about editing, retitling, and marketing carefully; ask for limits or at least consultation rights.
- Include terms that let you reclaim rights if a partner fails to release the work, goes dark, or breaches key promises.
Document everything
- Keep organized copies of releases, licenses, and contracts; these documents are part of your project’s value and proof of your rights.
- Register your work where applicable (for example, copyright), which strengthens your ability to enforce your rights if someone copies you.

Education-focused legal resources repeatedly stress that preventative steps—basic contracts, clear permissions, and simple registrations—are far cheaper than dealing with takedowns, lawsuits, or forced rewrites later.

The Big Takeaway: Story and Law Are Connected

The Michael biopic illustrates what happens when legal obligations and creative vision collide: whole characters disappear, endings are rewritten, and the public only sees a version of the story that fits within old contracts.

As an indie filmmaker, writer, or content creator, you may not have millions at stake, but you do have something just as valuable—your voice and your ability to tell the story you meant to tell.

Understanding the legal dimensions of your work is not a distraction from creativity; it is a way of protecting it. When you know where the legal boundaries are, you can design stories that are bold, truthful, and still safe enough to reach the audiences they deserve.