1. Home
  2. News and Insights
  3. Client Alert: Senator J.D. Vance Calls for FTC and DOJ to Investigate Admissions Practices of Universities in the Wake of SFFA

Client Alert: Senator J.D. Vance Calls for FTC and DOJ to Investigate Admissions Practices of Universities in the Wake of SFFA

Publications

September 1, 2023

By: Ishan K. Bhabha, Douglas Litvack

On August 10, 2023, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, called for the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate top universities for allegedly coordinating their admissions policies following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision banning affirmative action.[1]

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina.[2] The Court’s 6-3 decision held that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and UNC violate the federal Equal Protection Clause, and in so holding, effectively proscribed nearly all race-conscious college admissions programs as they currently stand.[3] The Court, applying strict scrutiny, rejected the universities’ professed diversity goals as too immeasurable and, in any event, held that the admissions programs were not narrowly tailored to meet a permissible interest.[4] The majority opinion concluded with a warning: “universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”[5] The Court echoed the long-established principle that “what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.”[6]

In his letters to the FTC and DOJ[7] , Sen. Vance explained that he had sent inquiries to ten top universities, many within the Ivy League, regarding their commitment to revise their race-based policies in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in SFFA. He characterized the responses he received from nine of the ten institutions as “generalized and dismissive” and stated they featured “uncanny similarit[ies], both in substance and structure.”[8] Based upon these responses, Sen. Vance concluded these universities have exhibited collusive behavior by coordinating their admissions policies and thus, the institutions should be subject to FTC and DOJ investigation.

Key Takeaways:

Senator Vance’s suspicion of anticompetitive collusion under Section 1 of the Sherman Act or Section 5 of the FTC Act appears misguided. As a general matter, anticompetitive collusion typically requires proof of: (1) an agreement — express or implied — between two or more independent entities and (2) a likely anticompetitive impact on consumers in a relevant market. Here, Senator Vance’s observations do not provide a reasonable basis to believe either, let alone both, of these elements could be satisfied.

First, the fact that the universities responded in a generally consistent manner is not sufficient to establish an agreement among the universities. In his letter, Sen. Vance relies on the universities’ common assurances that they would comply with the SFFA decision and referrals to their university website for further information, among other things, as evidence of collusion. However, it is well-established that parallel conduct alone is insufficient to prove collusion.[9] That is because the parallel conduct could represent each organization’s independent, rational decision-making and does not necessarily denote coordination. That could be the case here where the universities’ responses are exactly consistent with how a reasonable organization, protecting its self-interest, would unilaterally respond to a discretionary request.

Second, to the extent that the universities were coordinated in their activities (again something for which there is no indication at all), critics would be hard-pressed to identify any harmful anticompetitive effect of such coordination. In order to demonstrate collusion, there must be a showing that the alleged unlawful act has a substantial anticompetitive effect that harms consumers in the relevant market.[10] It is not clear what harm enrolled and prospective students would suffer if the universities were to collaborate on best practices for achieving student-body diversity in a manner compliant with the new legal standards announced in SFFA.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the FTC might nevertheless take steps in response to Sen. Vance’s letter. Under Chairwoman Lina Khan’s leadership, the FTC has taken a more aggressive stance towards consumer protection and antitrust enforcement.[11] Last November, the agency released a policy statement analyzing its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to investigate and prosecute unfair methods of competition.[12] The policy statement envisions an FTC with significantly broader enforcement authority, proclaiming that the FTC’s mandate “reaches more broadly than the antitrust laws.”[13] Since then, the FTC has taken big swings against noteworthy players—pharmacy benefit managers for potentially illegal rebate schemes,[14] OpenAI for possible data privacy issues relating to ChatGPT,[15] and, most recently, Amazon for alleged antitrust violations.[16] Khan and her staff have also come under increasing the scrutiny of congressional Republicans, who have accused her of over-politicizing the nation’s chief consumer protection agency.[17] It is possible that Khan may pay at least nominal consideration to Sen. Vance’s accusations to appear even-handed and principally consistent. Higher education institutions should be prepared for potential FTC scrutiny, although for the reasons briefly discussed above, they should be well-placed to push back forcefully against any investigation based on Sen. Vance’s observations.

Jenner & Block has a deep commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as, extensive experience helping clients accomplish their DEI goals while minimizing legal risk. Jenner & Block also houses an active antitrust and competition law group with expertise in handling complex litigation and sensitive investigations. If you are interested in learning more about our work in these areas, please contact Ishan Bhabha (ibhabha@jenner.com), or Doug Litvack (dlitvack@jenner.com).

[1] Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 143 S. Ct. 2141 (2023).

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at 2175.

[4] Id. at 2166–68.

[5] Id. at 2176.

[6] Id. (quoting Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 325 (1867) (unaltered quotation taken from original)).

[7] J.D. Vance, Letter to Hon. Lina M. Khan (Aug. 10, 2023) https://www.vance.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Sen.-Vance-Letter-To-FTC-8.10.23.pdf.

[8] Id.

[9] See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (“The inadequacy of showing parallel conduct or interdependence, without more, mirrors the ambiguity of the behavior: consistent with conspiracy, but just as much in line with a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market.”).

[10] Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2284 (2018).

[11] FTC Chair Khan Accused of ‘Abuse of Power’ in New US House Probe, Reuters (June 2, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ftc-chair-khan-accused-abuse-power-new-us-house-probe-2023-06-01/ [hereinafter FTC Chair Khan].

[12] Fed. Trade Comm’n, Comm’n File No. P221202, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (2022).

[13] Id. at 2.

[14] Fred Ashton, FTC and Congress Put PBMs on Notice, Am. Action F. (Apr. 17, 2023), https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/ftc-and-congress-put-pbms-on-notice.

[15] Cecilia Kang & Cade Metz, FTC Opens Investigation Into ChatGPT Maker Over Technology’s Potential Harms, N.Y. Times (July 13, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/technology/chatgpt-investigation-ftc-openai.html.

[16] David Shepardson & Diane Bartz, Amazon.com Set to Meet with US FTC Ahead of Potential Antitrust Lawsuit, Reuters (Aug. 7, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazoncom-set-meet-with-ftc-ahead-potential-antitrust-lawsuit-source-2023-08-07.

[17] Mary Clare Jalonick & Matt O’Brien, House Republicans Interrogate FTC’s Khan Over Regulation of Big Tech, Assoc. Press (July 12, 2023), https://apnews.com/article/republicans-ftc-khan-technology-companies-41610756160e10732f7ded6c587cec0e; see FTC Chair Khan, supra note 11.

Footnotes

[1] Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 143 S. Ct. 2141 (2023).

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at 2175.

[4] Id. at 2166–68.

[5] Id. at 2176.

[6] Id. (quoting Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 325 (1867) (unaltered quotation taken from original)).

[7] J.D. Vance, Letter to Hon. Lina M. Khan (Aug. 10, 2023) https://www.vance.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Sen.-Vance-Letter-To-FTC-8.10.23.pdf.

[8] Id.

[9] See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (“The inadequacy of showing parallel conduct or interdependence, without more, mirrors the ambiguity of the behavior: consistent with conspiracy, but just as much in line with a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market.”).

[10] Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2284 (2018).

[11] FTC Chair Khan Accused of ‘Abuse of Power’ in New US House Probe, Reuters (June 2, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ftc-chair-khan-accused-abuse-power-new-us-house-probe-2023-06-01/ [hereinafter FTC Chair Khan].

[12] Fed. Trade Comm’n, Comm’n File No. P221202, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (2022).

[13] Id. at 2.

[14] Fred Ashton, FTC and Congress Put PBMs on Notice, Am. Action F. (Apr. 17, 2023), https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/ftc-and-congress-put-pbms-on-notice.

[15] Cecilia Kang & Cade Metz, FTC Opens Investigation Into ChatGPT Maker Over Technology’s Potential Harms, N.Y. Times (July 13, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/technology/chatgpt-investigation-ftc-openai.html.

[16] David Shepardson & Diane Bartz, Amazon.com Set to Meet with US FTC Ahead of Potential Antitrust Lawsuit, Reuters (Aug. 7, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazoncom-set-meet-with-ftc-ahead-potential-antitrust-lawsuit-source-2023-08-07.

[17] Mary Clare Jalonick & Matt O’Brien, House Republicans Interrogate FTC’s Khan Over Regulation of Big Tech, Assoc. Press (July 12, 2023), https://apnews.com/article/republicans-ftc-khan-technology-companies-41610756160e10732f7ded6c587cec0e; see FTC Chair Khan, supra note 11.

Related Capabilities

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

Stay Informed

Client Alert: Senator J.D. Vance Calls for FTC and DOJ to Investigate Admissions Practices of Universities in the Wake of SFFA

Publications

September 1, 2023

By: Ishan K. Bhabha, Douglas Litvack

On August 10, 2023, Sen. J.D. Vance, R-Ohio, called for the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate top universities for allegedly coordinating their admissions policies following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision banning affirmative action.[1]

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court decided Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. President & Fellows of Harvard College and SFFA v. University of North Carolina.[2] The Court’s 6-3 decision held that race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and UNC violate the federal Equal Protection Clause, and in so holding, effectively proscribed nearly all race-conscious college admissions programs as they currently stand.[3] The Court, applying strict scrutiny, rejected the universities’ professed diversity goals as too immeasurable and, in any event, held that the admissions programs were not narrowly tailored to meet a permissible interest.[4] The majority opinion concluded with a warning: “universities may not simply establish through application essays or other means the regime we hold unlawful today.”[5] The Court echoed the long-established principle that “what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly.”[6]

In his letters to the FTC and DOJ[7] , Sen. Vance explained that he had sent inquiries to ten top universities, many within the Ivy League, regarding their commitment to revise their race-based policies in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in SFFA. He characterized the responses he received from nine of the ten institutions as “generalized and dismissive” and stated they featured “uncanny similarit[ies], both in substance and structure.”[8] Based upon these responses, Sen. Vance concluded these universities have exhibited collusive behavior by coordinating their admissions policies and thus, the institutions should be subject to FTC and DOJ investigation.

Key Takeaways:

Senator Vance’s suspicion of anticompetitive collusion under Section 1 of the Sherman Act or Section 5 of the FTC Act appears misguided. As a general matter, anticompetitive collusion typically requires proof of: (1) an agreement — express or implied — between two or more independent entities and (2) a likely anticompetitive impact on consumers in a relevant market. Here, Senator Vance’s observations do not provide a reasonable basis to believe either, let alone both, of these elements could be satisfied.

First, the fact that the universities responded in a generally consistent manner is not sufficient to establish an agreement among the universities. In his letter, Sen. Vance relies on the universities’ common assurances that they would comply with the SFFA decision and referrals to their university website for further information, among other things, as evidence of collusion. However, it is well-established that parallel conduct alone is insufficient to prove collusion.[9] That is because the parallel conduct could represent each organization’s independent, rational decision-making and does not necessarily denote coordination. That could be the case here where the universities’ responses are exactly consistent with how a reasonable organization, protecting its self-interest, would unilaterally respond to a discretionary request.

Second, to the extent that the universities were coordinated in their activities (again something for which there is no indication at all), critics would be hard-pressed to identify any harmful anticompetitive effect of such coordination. In order to demonstrate collusion, there must be a showing that the alleged unlawful act has a substantial anticompetitive effect that harms consumers in the relevant market.[10] It is not clear what harm enrolled and prospective students would suffer if the universities were to collaborate on best practices for achieving student-body diversity in a manner compliant with the new legal standards announced in SFFA.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, the FTC might nevertheless take steps in response to Sen. Vance’s letter. Under Chairwoman Lina Khan’s leadership, the FTC has taken a more aggressive stance towards consumer protection and antitrust enforcement.[11] Last November, the agency released a policy statement analyzing its authority under Section 5 of the FTC Act to investigate and prosecute unfair methods of competition.[12] The policy statement envisions an FTC with significantly broader enforcement authority, proclaiming that the FTC’s mandate “reaches more broadly than the antitrust laws.”[13] Since then, the FTC has taken big swings against noteworthy players—pharmacy benefit managers for potentially illegal rebate schemes,[14] OpenAI for possible data privacy issues relating to ChatGPT,[15] and, most recently, Amazon for alleged antitrust violations.[16] Khan and her staff have also come under increasing the scrutiny of congressional Republicans, who have accused her of over-politicizing the nation’s chief consumer protection agency.[17] It is possible that Khan may pay at least nominal consideration to Sen. Vance’s accusations to appear even-handed and principally consistent. Higher education institutions should be prepared for potential FTC scrutiny, although for the reasons briefly discussed above, they should be well-placed to push back forcefully against any investigation based on Sen. Vance’s observations.

Jenner & Block has a deep commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as, extensive experience helping clients accomplish their DEI goals while minimizing legal risk. Jenner & Block also houses an active antitrust and competition law group with expertise in handling complex litigation and sensitive investigations. If you are interested in learning more about our work in these areas, please contact Ishan Bhabha (ibhabha@jenner.com), or Doug Litvack (dlitvack@jenner.com).

[1] Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 143 S. Ct. 2141 (2023).

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at 2175.

[4] Id. at 2166–68.

[5] Id. at 2176.

[6] Id. (quoting Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 325 (1867) (unaltered quotation taken from original)).

[7] J.D. Vance, Letter to Hon. Lina M. Khan (Aug. 10, 2023) https://www.vance.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Sen.-Vance-Letter-To-FTC-8.10.23.pdf.

[8] Id.

[9] See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (“The inadequacy of showing parallel conduct or interdependence, without more, mirrors the ambiguity of the behavior: consistent with conspiracy, but just as much in line with a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market.”).

[10] Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2284 (2018).

[11] FTC Chair Khan Accused of ‘Abuse of Power’ in New US House Probe, Reuters (June 2, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ftc-chair-khan-accused-abuse-power-new-us-house-probe-2023-06-01/ [hereinafter FTC Chair Khan].

[12] Fed. Trade Comm’n, Comm’n File No. P221202, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (2022).

[13] Id. at 2.

[14] Fred Ashton, FTC and Congress Put PBMs on Notice, Am. Action F. (Apr. 17, 2023), https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/ftc-and-congress-put-pbms-on-notice.

[15] Cecilia Kang & Cade Metz, FTC Opens Investigation Into ChatGPT Maker Over Technology’s Potential Harms, N.Y. Times (July 13, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/technology/chatgpt-investigation-ftc-openai.html.

[16] David Shepardson & Diane Bartz, Amazon.com Set to Meet with US FTC Ahead of Potential Antitrust Lawsuit, Reuters (Aug. 7, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazoncom-set-meet-with-ftc-ahead-potential-antitrust-lawsuit-source-2023-08-07.

[17] Mary Clare Jalonick & Matt O’Brien, House Republicans Interrogate FTC’s Khan Over Regulation of Big Tech, Assoc. Press (July 12, 2023), https://apnews.com/article/republicans-ftc-khan-technology-companies-41610756160e10732f7ded6c587cec0e; see FTC Chair Khan, supra note 11.

Footnotes

[1] Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 143 S. Ct. 2141 (2023).

[2] Id.

[3] Id. at 2175.

[4] Id. at 2166–68.

[5] Id. at 2176.

[6] Id. (quoting Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 325 (1867) (unaltered quotation taken from original)).

[7] J.D. Vance, Letter to Hon. Lina M. Khan (Aug. 10, 2023) https://www.vance.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Sen.-Vance-Letter-To-FTC-8.10.23.pdf.

[8] Id.

[9] See, e.g., Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 554 (2007) (“The inadequacy of showing parallel conduct or interdependence, without more, mirrors the ambiguity of the behavior: consistent with conspiracy, but just as much in line with a wide swath of rational and competitive business strategy unilaterally prompted by common perceptions of the market.”).

[10] Ohio v. Am. Express Co., 138 S. Ct. 2274, 2284 (2018).

[11] FTC Chair Khan Accused of ‘Abuse of Power’ in New US House Probe, Reuters (June 2, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ftc-chair-khan-accused-abuse-power-new-us-house-probe-2023-06-01/ [hereinafter FTC Chair Khan].

[12] Fed. Trade Comm’n, Comm’n File No. P221202, Policy Statement Regarding the Scope of Unfair Methods of Competition Under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (2022).

[13] Id. at 2.

[14] Fred Ashton, FTC and Congress Put PBMs on Notice, Am. Action F. (Apr. 17, 2023), https://www.americanactionforum.org/insight/ftc-and-congress-put-pbms-on-notice.

[15] Cecilia Kang & Cade Metz, FTC Opens Investigation Into ChatGPT Maker Over Technology’s Potential Harms, N.Y. Times (July 13, 2023), https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/13/technology/chatgpt-investigation-ftc-openai.html.

[16] David Shepardson & Diane Bartz, Amazon.com Set to Meet with US FTC Ahead of Potential Antitrust Lawsuit, Reuters (Aug. 7, 2023), https://www.reuters.com/legal/amazoncom-set-meet-with-ftc-ahead-potential-antitrust-lawsuit-source-2023-08-07.

[17] Mary Clare Jalonick & Matt O’Brien, House Republicans Interrogate FTC’s Khan Over Regulation of Big Tech, Assoc. Press (July 12, 2023), https://apnews.com/article/republicans-ftc-khan-technology-companies-41610756160e10732f7ded6c587cec0e; see FTC Chair Khan, supra note 11.

Related Capabilities

© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.

Stay Informed

News and Insights

Podcasts

Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast

Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.

July 15, 2026

Client Alerts

Department of War Suspends CMMC Phase II—But Compliance Obligations Remain, As Does Enforcement Risk

On July 13, 2026, the Department of War (DoW) announced the immediate suspension of the Phase II requirements of the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) program, which had been scheduled to take effect on November 10, 2026. The suspension, memorialized in a memorandum dated July 10, 2026, and signed by DoW Chief Information Officer Kirsten Davies, also halts the pending Phase III and Phase IV implementation milestones and directs a comprehensive, 60-day review of the program.

July 14, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Launches Alumni Portal

Jenner & Block’s alumni program launched a new alumni portal for former firm lawyers, available now at jennerationsalumni.com.

July 14, 2026

Publications

Partner Joanna Ludlam Featured in City AM on Pressure for Wider ICO Overhaul

Partner Joanna Ludlam - Chair of Jenner & Block's London Public Law and Crisis Management Practice, Co-Chair of the firm's Global Hearing Preparation and Global Crisis Management and Strategic Risk practices, and Co-Chair of the firm's Investigations Department - was featured in City AM's examination of the mounting pressure for a broader overhaul of the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) following John Edwards' resignation.

July 14, 2026

Event

Partner Karin Dryhurst to Speak at ABA In-House Counsel Session on Anti-Discrimination Laws

On July 14, Partner Karin Dryhurst will speak on a panel hosted by the American Bar Association Business Law Section’s In-House Counsel Committee titled "How to Handle Current Discrimination Risks Across Industries: What In-House Counsel Need to Know About the Evolving Landscape."

July 14, 2026

Publications

Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report

Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.

July 14, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Named a Top 3 Firm in Law360's 2025-2026 US Supreme Court Scorecard

Jenner & Block ranked among the top three firms in Law360's annual scorecard of which firms argued most frequently before the US Supreme Court during the 2025–26 term.

July 13, 2026

News

Partner Lucy Blake Featured in Forward Law Review on UK's Proposed Modern Slavery Report

London Partner Lucy Blake was featured in Forward Law Review, where she commented on the UK government's proposed overhaul of the Modern Slavery Act 2015's corporate reporting regime - the biggest changes to section 54 since it was introduced. Lucy's insights highlight the shift toward mandatory disclosure, board-level accountability, and financial penalties for organisations and public authorities that fail to comply.

July 13, 2026

Publications

Katya Jestin Discusses Relationship Building and Her Path to Law in ABA Journal

In a recent "My Path to Law" profile, Partner Katya Jestin shares the experiences that shaped her career, from prosecuting the Mafia as a federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York, to running a busy white collar defense practice, to representing Guantánamo Bay high-value detainee Majid Khan in a pro bono matter.

July 10, 2026

Publications

Ashely Callen Discusses Anticipated Uptick in Congressional Oversight of Companies in Global Investigations Review

Partner Ashley Callen spoke with Global Investigations Review about the likely uptick in congressional oversight of companies if Democrats retake a chamber of Congress in the November 2026 US midterm elections.

July 10, 2026

Recognition

Chicago Associate Christina Lopez Recognized with Chicago Bar Foundation’s Weigle Award

Associate Christina Lopez has been honored by the Chicago Bar Foundation with the Maurice Weigle Exceptional Young Lawyer Award at its Pro Bono & Public Service Award Luncheon.

July 10, 2026

Recognition

Jenner & Block Named a Leader in Pro Bono by The American Lawyer

Jenner & Block has been named a leader in pro bono in The American Lawyer's 2026 Pro Bono Report, ranking in the top three nationally and #1 internationally for a second consecutive year.

July 8, 2026

Recognition

Tony Barkow Named Finalist for Office Managing Partner of the Year by New York Law Journal

Tony Barkow, Managing Partner of Jenner & Block's New York office, has been named a finalist for the Office Managing Partner of the Year award in the New York Law Journal's New York Legal Awards 2026.

July 8, 2026

Publications

Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law

Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.

July 7, 2026

News

Jenner & Block Secures Summary Judgment for Sexual Assault Survivor in Nearly Seven-Year Retaliation Suit

A Jenner & Block team secured summary judgment on behalf of a pro bono client who was sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after reporting a sexual assault and cooperating with law enforcement, bringing to a close nearly seven years of retaliatory litigation.

July 7, 2026

Client Alerts

The EU Anti-Corruption Directive: What You Need to Know

Directive (EU) 2026/1021 (the Directive) is the most far-reaching development in European anti-corruption law in more than two decades. It harmonises the criminal anti-corruption laws of the participating Member States by establishing a single set of criminal offences, penalties, and prevention duties.1 

July 7, 2026

Publications

In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision

Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.

July 1, 2026

Event

Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference

On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.

July 1, 2026

Recognition

Chief Justice Roberts Appoints Partner Catherine Steege to Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. has appointed Partner Catherine Steege to the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules. Cathy will serve a three-year term beginning October 1, 2026, on the committee that shapes and recommends changes to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure nationwide.

June 30, 2026

Event

CLE Relay 2026 — Session 4 — US Supreme Court Term in Review

Jenner & Block's appellate lawyers review the most consequential cases from the 2025–2026 Supreme Court term. This session covers high-profile decisions and pending matters addressing presidential power, agency independence, birthright citizenship, voting rights, and other significant constitutional and federal law questions before the Court.

June 30, 2026

View All News and Insights