The Supreme Court held that a regulator who conveys a credible threat of adverse enforcement to induce banks and insurers to stop serving a speaker may have violated the First Amendment. That limits a common practice where regulators publicly pressure private firms to cut ties with controversial groups instead of pursuing direct government litigation or bans.
— This reshapes how state agencies, corporations, and platforms interact over contested speech — curbing 'deplatforming by proxy' and forcing clearer legal boundaries on regulatory persuasion.
Matthew Yglesias
2026.05.14
70% relevant
The article contests claims (made by politicians and pundits) that blocking the JetBlue–Spirit merger ‘caused’ Spirit’s failure — arguing instead that exogenous fuel cost shocks and operational issues were decisive — which ties to the existing idea that regulatory actions have constrained leverage and mixed causal effects on firm outcomes.
Dave Altimari
2026.04.27
80% relevant
The article documents an instance where a statutory reform (Connecticut's towing law) did not produce expected changes because private actors (towing companies) continue to tow cars without following the law's notice, payment, and retrieval provisions, illustrating the broader claim that laws without enforceable mechanisms or resources can fail when businesses choose noncompliance.
BeauHD
2026.04.20
60% relevant
Pentagon efforts to cut off Anthropic and force vendors to follow suit — while other agencies keep using the model — illustrates limits and contestation around regulatory coercion and enforcement in practice.
2026.04.04
100% relevant
Maria T. Vullo (NY State Department of Financial Services) advised banks and insurers to avoid the NRA after Parkland; the Supreme Court (602 U.S. 175, May 30, 2024) vacated the Second Circuit and held such coercion can violate the First Amendment.