This Day in Legal History: Blue Sky Laws
On March 10, 1911, Kansas enacted the first “blue sky law” in the United States, marking a significant development in the regulation of securities markets. The statute was designed to protect investors from fraudulent investment schemes that had become increasingly common in the early twentieth century. At the time, promoters frequently sold speculative securities with little oversight and few consequences if the ventures failed. Kansas lawmakers responded by creating a system that required securities offerings to be reviewed before they could be sold to the public. State officials were given authority to examine proposed investments and determine whether they were legitimate.
The name “blue sky law” reflected the legislature’s concern that many promoters were selling investments backed by nothing more than empty promises. Lawmakers wanted to prevent the sale of securities that had no real value or financial foundation. Kansas banking commissioner Joseph Norman Dolley played a central role in advocating for the law and persuading the legislature to adopt stronger investor protections. His efforts reflected growing public concern about financial fraud and the need for government oversight of securities markets.
The Kansas statute quickly became a model for other states. Within a few years, many states adopted their own versions of blue sky laws, creating a patchwork system of state-level securities regulation. These laws helped establish the principle that governments could require disclosure and review before securities were sold to the public. The idea later influenced the development of federal securities regulation during the New Deal era. In particular, the framework helped shape the Securities Act of 1933, which created nationwide disclosure requirements for securities offerings.
Live Nation Entertainment has reached a proposed settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice in a major antitrust case challenging the company’s dominance in concert promotion and ticketing. The agreement was disclosed during a court hearing and could resolve part of a lawsuit brought by federal regulators and more than two dozen states. Live Nation is also negotiating separately with state attorneys general in an effort to reach a broader nationwide resolution of related claims.
Under the proposed deal, the company would pay roughly $200 million in damages to participating states and accept structural reforms aimed at reducing its market power. Regulators had argued that Live Nation’s control of venues, artist promotion, and ticketing—particularly through Ticketmaster—allowed the company to inflate prices and limit competition. The lawsuit was filed in 2024 and initially sought to break up the company by forcing a sale of Ticketmaster.
The settlement instead focuses on changing how the ticketing market operates. Ticketmaster would be required to open parts of its technology platform to competing ticket sellers, allowing third-party companies to list tickets directly through its system. The deal would also limit the length of Live Nation’s exclusive contracts with venues to four years and permit venues to allocate some ticket inventory to rival platforms.
The case gained political attention after widespread complaints about long online queues and high prices during the 2022 Taylor Swift Eras Tour ticket sales. A federal judge had allowed the antitrust case to proceed to trial after rejecting Live Nation’s attempt to dismiss it earlier this year. If finalized, the settlement would impose oversight and competition requirements on the company rather than break it up.
Live Nation reaches settlement with DOJ in antitrust case | Reuters
Democratic U.S. senators plan to introduce legislation that would extend the time prosecutors have to bring foreign bribery cases from five years to ten. The proposal, called the FCPA Reinforcement Act, is led by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Dick Durbin along with several other Democratic lawmakers. It responds to recent Justice Department decisions to scale back enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), a 1977 law that prohibits companies operating in the United States from bribing foreign officials.
Supporters of the bill argue that international corruption investigations are complex and often take years to uncover, making the current five-year statute of limitations too short. The proposed law would temporarily extend the deadline for bringing anti-bribery charges to ten years for an eight-year period. Lawmakers say the change is meant to ensure companies can still be held accountable for misconduct even if enforcement priorities shift.
The proposal also signals to corporations that compliance obligations remain important despite the current enforcement slowdown. Some legal experts worry that reduced federal enforcement could lead companies to scale back anti-corruption compliance programs or stop voluntarily reporting violations. Although the bill may face difficulty passing in the current Congress, it indicates that some lawmakers want to preserve strong anti-bribery enforcement and may pursue stricter oversight in the future.
US lawmakers plan bill allowing 10 years to bring bribery cases | Reuters
A divided federal appeals court has refused to allow the Trump administration to end immigration protections for more than 350,000 Haitians living in the United States. In a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit declined to pause a lower court ruling that blocked the Department of Homeland Security from terminating Haiti’s Temporary Protected Status (TPS). The ruling means the protections will remain in place while the administration continues its appeal.
TPS is a humanitarian program that allows people from certain countries facing crises—such as armed conflict, natural disasters, or political instability—to remain in the United States temporarily and obtain work authorization. Haitians first received TPS after the devastating 2010 earthquake, and the designation has been repeatedly renewed because of ongoing instability in the country.
The Trump administration sought to end Haiti’s TPS designation as part of a broader effort to scale back the program, arguing that it was never intended to function as long-term legal status. But a federal district judge previously ruled that the government’s attempt to terminate the protection likely violated both TPS procedures and constitutional equal-protection principles. The appeals court majority agreed that sending Haitian migrants back now could expose them to severe violence and humanitarian risks due to Haiti’s deteriorating conditions.
One judge dissented, arguing the case was legally similar to disputes where courts allowed the administration to end TPS protections for Venezuelans. The Department of Homeland Security said it plans to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. For now, the decision preserves legal status and work authorization for hundreds of thousands of Haitian immigrants while the litigation continues.
Trump cannot end protections for 350,000 Haitians, US appeals court rules | Reuters
My column for Bloomberg this week examines the surprising milestone that renewable energy generated 26% of U.S. electricity in 2025—even as federal clean-energy incentives were being rolled back. At first glance, that record share might suggest the transition to renewables is unstoppable. In reality, much of the current growth reflects investment decisions made years earlier, when generous subsidies from the Inflation Reduction Act and related policies were still in place. Large wind and solar projects often take three to seven years to move from financing and permitting to full operation. That means many facilities coming online today were funded under a very different policy environment than the one developers face now.
Recent changes to federal tax policy have scaled back or eliminated several incentives that previously supported renewable development and electric vehicle adoption. These changes do not immediately halt construction, but they alter the financial calculations for the next generation of projects. Renewable energy projects rely heavily on financing structures that incorporate tax credits, equity partnerships, and long-term debt. When incentives shrink or become uncertain, developers must either accept greater risk or secure more expensive capital. At the same time, unresolved federal rulemaking and regulatory uncertainty are adding another layer of caution for investors. Although wind and solar technology costs have declined and can remain competitive with fossil fuels, policy instability can still erode project margins.
The key point is that energy statistics describe what is already built, while investment decisions determine what the energy system will look like years from now. Current renewable growth may therefore reflect past policy rather than present conditions. Financing data already shows signs of slowing investment in green energy. To maintain steady development, policymakers should avoid abrupt tax-credit expirations and instead adopt predictable, multi-year phaseouts that allow markets to adjust. Agencies could also reduce uncertainty by finalizing or withdrawing proposed energy regulations within clear timelines. Stable rules make it easier for investors to commit capital to projects designed to operate for decades. The next investment cycle will reveal whether today’s policy environment supports continued energy expansion or discourages it.
