Insights Search

The electric utility sector has long been shaped by the steady hand of regulation. For decades, utility commissions have balanced the needs of reliability, affordability and fairness against the realities of capital investment and technological change. But today, we stand at a critical inflection point. A new class of energy consumers — data centers — has emerged not just as a high-demand load, but as a catalyst for broader economic growth.

Last month saw notable developments in the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits regarding challenges to laws in Florida and Texas, respectively, that prohibit certain foreign nationals and companies from acquiring real property within those states.

On November 20, 2025, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC” or the “Commission”) issued four significant orders addressing crude oil, petroleum products, and natural gas liquids pipelines (collectively, “oil pipelines”) matters: (1) a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NOPR”) for the Five-Year Review of the Oil Pipeline Index (“2026 Index NOPR”) proposing an index level of Producer Price Index for Finished Goods (“PPI-FG”) minus 1.42% for the period (July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2031); (2) an Order denying rehearing and granting oil pipelines remedial relief related to the reinstated oil pipeline index for the period March 1, 2022 to September 17, 2024; (3) an order withdrawing the supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking that proposed to amend the index level to PPI-FG minus 0.21% on a prospective basis from July 1, 2025 until June 30, 2026; and (4) an order denying Airlines for America and the National Propane Gas Association’s petition requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking to establish affiliate standards of conduct regulations for oil pipelines.

The U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) has adopted a 50% ownership rule that extends to parties on the Entity List and Military End-User List (“MEU List”).

The Supreme Court held a marathon, nearly 3-hour oral argument yesterday, in what could be the most economically-impactful cases this Term: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections (the “Tariff Cases”).

On October 16, 2025, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed Senate Bill S7882 into law, adding Section 340‑b to the New York General Business Law.

On September 30, 2025, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor entered final judgment following a bench trial in a class-action lawsuit against American Airlines and its Employee Benefits Committee (the “EBC”), finding the defendants breached their duty of loyalty under the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) by allowing an investment manager’s environmental, social and governance (“ESG”) objectives to influence its investment decisions with respect to the company’s retirement plans (the “Plan”).

On October 06, 2025, California enacted two significant antitrust statutes designed to enhance public and private enforcement of the state’s antitrust law, the Cartwright Act.

On September 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) formally abandoned its efforts to enforce a Biden-era final rule (“Rule”) implementing a blanket ban on most employee non-compete agreements. Instead, the FTC signaled its intent to challenge non-compete agreements on a case-by-case basis. To that end, the FTC announced an enforcement action challenging one company’s non-compete agreements, published a request for information (“RFI”) seeking the public’s input on non-compete provisions, sent warning letters to several health care companies regarding their employment agreements, and announced a future workshop on this subject. Together, these actions could mark the beginning of a new, more targeted enforcement landscape and create new uncertainties for employers on the legality of non-compete agreements.

Over the last thirty years, Vinson & Elkins attorneys have played a leading role in some of the largest and most significant cartel matters worldwide.

Vinson & Elkins is pleased to offer this round-up of recent developments in federal enforcement, with a particular emphasis on changes during the first few months of the second Trump administration.

In its ongoing crusade against so-called “basis-shifting” transactions, the Internal Revenue Service has created widespread uncertainty regarding the tax treatment of routine transactions.