First up are Amir Tayrani, Andrew Kilberg and their team at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Jeff Wall, Judson Littleton and their team at Sullivan & Cromwell, who secured a nationwide injunction blocking the Federal Trade Commission's proposed ban on non-compete agreements, which was set to go into effect early next month. U.S. District Judge Ada Brown in Dallas this week found that the FTC exceeded its statutory authority and held that its proposed rule was "arbitrary and capricious" in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. "In sum, the Rule is based on inconsistent and flawed empirical evidence, fails to consider the positive benefits of non-compete agreements, and disregards the substantial body of evidence supporting these agreements," Brown wrote. Gibson Dunn represented tax services and software provider Ryan, which filed the initial lawsuit challenging the proposed rule. Aside from Tayrani and Kilberg, the Gibson Dunn team included Eugene Scalia, Allyson Ho, Aaron Hauptman, Josh Zuckerman and Elizabeth Kiernan, as well as Chad Fillmore and Dusty Fillmore of The Fillmore Law Firm. The Sullivan & Cromwell team represented a group of advocacy groups that intervened in the suit—the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, Texas Association of Business and Longview Chamber of Commerce. The intervenors' team also included Robert Sayles and Boyce Holleman of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings, Jordan Von Bokern and Tyler Badgley of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center and Liz Dougherty of Business Roundtable.

 A team at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius led by Jason Pinney and Michael Kenneally helped the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, or SIFMA, secure a ruling blocking Missouri rules targeting financial professionals who consider "a social objective or other non-financial objective" in investment advice. U.S. District Judge Stephen Bough in Kansas City found federal laws preempted the Missouri rules, which required securities brokers and advisers who consider ESG objectives in investments to disclose them using certain language and obtain customer consent. The judge granted SIFMA's motion for summary judgment last week, further finding the rules were unconstitutionally vague and violated SIFMA's First Amendment rights.