Todd Phillips
@tphillips.bsky.social
Banking and administrative law. Independent policy consultant. Future Robinson College. Fellow Roosevelt Institute. Fmr CAP, FDIC, ACUS.
Sure seems like a yield amendment was going to pass the Banking Committee, and that's why Coinbase blew up the markup!
January 16, 2026 at 2:29 PM
Sure seems like a yield amendment was going to pass the Banking Committee, and that's why Coinbase blew up the markup!
I know most folks on Bluesky don't follow crypto, but I put this on the Other Site and figured I'd post it here for anyone who wants to understand what's going on.
TL;DR: Community/regional banks and Coinbase are locked in a zero-sum competition. If one wins, the other loses.
TL;DR: Community/regional banks and Coinbase are locked in a zero-sum competition. If one wins, the other loses.
January 16, 2026 at 1:56 PM
I know most folks on Bluesky don't follow crypto, but I put this on the Other Site and figured I'd post it here for anyone who wants to understand what's going on.
TL;DR: Community/regional banks and Coinbase are locked in a zero-sum competition. If one wins, the other loses.
TL;DR: Community/regional banks and Coinbase are locked in a zero-sum competition. If one wins, the other loses.
Oh, sorry! Numbers #7 and #8 in your thread. I just re-read them and realized that you're saying what the conservative justices could think. Yes, they could think this. I think they'd be wrong (for the reasons I wrote), but they certainly could think it!
January 15, 2026 at 9:33 PM
Oh, sorry! Numbers #7 and #8 in your thread. I just re-read them and realized that you're saying what the conservative justices could think. Yes, they could think this. I think they'd be wrong (for the reasons I wrote), but they certainly could think it!
(That Fed majority could fire reserve bank presidents under Free Enterprise Fund, thus taking control of the FOMC, which is the interest-rate setting body.) 2/2
January 15, 2026 at 9:01 PM
(That Fed majority could fire reserve bank presidents under Free Enterprise Fund, thus taking control of the FOMC, which is the interest-rate setting body.) 2/2
I'm not sure this is right. Trump hasn't tried to fire Powell, but he did "fire" Cook. I'll bet the only reason he didn't fire another governor was because SCOTUS didn't allow Cook to be removed.
If SCOTUS allowed two governors to be removed, that'd give Trump a Fed majority. 1/
If SCOTUS allowed two governors to be removed, that'd give Trump a Fed majority. 1/
January 15, 2026 at 9:01 PM
I'm not sure this is right. Trump hasn't tried to fire Powell, but he did "fire" Cook. I'll bet the only reason he didn't fire another governor was because SCOTUS didn't allow Cook to be removed.
If SCOTUS allowed two governors to be removed, that'd give Trump a Fed majority. 1/
If SCOTUS allowed two governors to be removed, that'd give Trump a Fed majority. 1/
Spot on
I want to talk about a dystopian world we are entering - where every moment, event, and crisis just become commodities.
Life stops being something we live, but something we sell and trade. It will breed both corruption & emptiness.
1/ A 🧵on why our politics can't ignore this.
Life stops being something we live, but something we sell and trade. It will breed both corruption & emptiness.
1/ A 🧵on why our politics can't ignore this.
January 14, 2026 at 11:53 PM
Spot on
Yes! I even wrote a paper about how more progressives should have been cheering Loper Bright!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
January 12, 2026 at 9:44 PM
Yes! I even wrote a paper about how more progressives should have been cheering Loper Bright!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
I'll be at AALS this week. Let me know if you want to grab coffee, a meal, or just have a casual chat!
January 6, 2026 at 4:59 PM
I'll be at AALS this week. Let me know if you want to grab coffee, a meal, or just have a casual chat!
I think law profs need to be very clear about whether they're acting as professors or in their personal capacities. I don't think litigating is within the role of a TT academic, and I (try to) include disclaimers in my amicus briefs that I'm filing in my personal capacity.
January 4, 2026 at 7:19 PM
I think law profs need to be very clear about whether they're acting as professors or in their personal capacities. I don't think litigating is within the role of a TT academic, and I (try to) include disclaimers in my amicus briefs that I'm filing in my personal capacity.
Flagging this for colleagues who study legislation, like @beaubaumann.bsky.social. Someone should write about efforts to redefine through regulation terms that Congress thought had concrete meanings. Beau and I wrote about the term "investment contract," and I've just found another one.
I found this in the Congressional Record. The term "unsafe or unsound practices" was considered to have a concrete definition, like "fraud" or "negligence. Legislators were concerned that it was too open-ended, but were ultimately convinced that the term was "sufficiently exact." 2/
December 30, 2025 at 2:35 PM
Flagging this for colleagues who study legislation, like @beaubaumann.bsky.social. Someone should write about efforts to redefine through regulation terms that Congress thought had concrete meanings. Beau and I wrote about the term "investment contract," and I've just found another one.
Courts don't let regulators redefine "negligence" as they want, so they shouldn't allow regulators to redefine "unsafe or unsound" either.
(I also continue my Sisyphusian effort to get regulators to stop using the term "matters requiring attention.") 3/3
(I also continue my Sisyphusian effort to get regulators to stop using the term "matters requiring attention.") 3/3
December 30, 2025 at 2:30 PM
Courts don't let regulators redefine "negligence" as they want, so they shouldn't allow regulators to redefine "unsafe or unsound" either.
(I also continue my Sisyphusian effort to get regulators to stop using the term "matters requiring attention.") 3/3
(I also continue my Sisyphusian effort to get regulators to stop using the term "matters requiring attention.") 3/3
I found this in the Congressional Record. The term "unsafe or unsound practices" was considered to have a concrete definition, like "fraud" or "negligence. Legislators were concerned that it was too open-ended, but were ultimately convinced that the term was "sufficiently exact." 2/
December 30, 2025 at 2:29 PM
I found this in the Congressional Record. The term "unsafe or unsound practices" was considered to have a concrete definition, like "fraud" or "negligence. Legislators were concerned that it was too open-ended, but were ultimately convinced that the term was "sufficiently exact." 2/
Inspired by others (particularly Jeremy Kress), late yesterday I submitted a short comment letter on the OCC/FDIC NPRM on unsafe or unsound practices. A lot of it was pulled from my prior scholarship, but I learned a fascinating new thing over the course of writing it. 1/
December 30, 2025 at 2:29 PM
Inspired by others (particularly Jeremy Kress), late yesterday I submitted a short comment letter on the OCC/FDIC NPRM on unsafe or unsound practices. A lot of it was pulled from my prior scholarship, but I learned a fascinating new thing over the course of writing it. 1/
I have no idea what they're thinking. I have to believe it's a plan to just grab all the money before courts shut it down, but then they face treble damages from Statutes of Anne once it is shut down.
www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/202...
Unless they actually think they're going to win...
www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/202...
Unless they actually think they're going to win...
A mysterious LLC is using a 300-year-old law to target D.C. sports betting
The D.C. Council may intervene to amend the Statute of Anne, a centuries-old law being used to sue sports betting companies.
www.washingtonpost.com
December 27, 2025 at 12:44 PM
I have no idea what they're thinking. I have to believe it's a plan to just grab all the money before courts shut it down, but then they face treble damages from Statutes of Anne once it is shut down.
www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/202...
Unless they actually think they're going to win...
www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/202...
Unless they actually think they're going to win...
Yeah, that's just a bizarre article.
December 26, 2025 at 7:35 PM
Yeah, that's just a bizarre article.
I agree with @evanbernick.bsky.social: They're just not consistent opinions. This issue wasn't briefed. My sense is he's just winging it.
Judicial opinions make more sense when you think of judges as people just acting like people.
Judicial opinions make more sense when you think of judges as people just acting like people.
December 23, 2025 at 9:32 PM
I agree with @evanbernick.bsky.social: They're just not consistent opinions. This issue wasn't briefed. My sense is he's just winging it.
Judicial opinions make more sense when you think of judges as people just acting like people.
Judicial opinions make more sense when you think of judges as people just acting like people.
Ooh, good catch! Does Kavanaugh know that? If so, then I have no idea what he means.
December 23, 2025 at 9:24 PM
Ooh, good catch! Does Kavanaugh know that? If so, then I have no idea what he means.
I think it's a reference to the interior of the country, since different rules apply within the 100-mile border enforcement zone.
(Note, this is why it's a big deal that the Administration moved CBP officers (who normally operate within that zone) over to ICE (who don't).)
(Note, this is why it's a big deal that the Administration moved CBP officers (who normally operate within that zone) over to ICE (who don't).)
December 23, 2025 at 9:14 PM
I think it's a reference to the interior of the country, since different rules apply within the 100-mile border enforcement zone.
(Note, this is why it's a big deal that the Administration moved CBP officers (who normally operate within that zone) over to ICE (who don't).)
(Note, this is why it's a big deal that the Administration moved CBP officers (who normally operate within that zone) over to ICE (who don't).)
Reposted by Todd Phillips
I just filed an amicus brief in Kalshi's lawsuit against Maryland, arguing that the sports-related contracts Kalshi lists are unlikely to be commodity derivatives, such that the CFTC does not have "exclusive jurisdiction" over them and Maryland's gaming laws are not preempted. 1/
December 22, 2025 at 1:40 PM
I just filed an amicus brief in Kalshi's lawsuit against Maryland, arguing that the sports-related contracts Kalshi lists are unlikely to be commodity derivatives, such that the CFTC does not have "exclusive jurisdiction" over them and Maryland's gaming laws are not preempted. 1/
Reposted by Todd Phillips
Shout out to @tphillips.bsky.social for this one
December 22, 2025 at 1:52 PM
Shout out to @tphillips.bsky.social for this one
Just doing my part to make the world a better place
December 22, 2025 at 1:44 PM
Just doing my part to make the world a better place
I have no doubt that the CFTC could do a bang-up job regulating these contracts if they are hedging instruments. But if they're gambling, the CFTC just doesn't have the necessary regulatory authorities.
It's up to courts to decide these contracts' status. 6/6
It's up to courts to decide these contracts' status. 6/6
December 22, 2025 at 1:44 PM
I have no doubt that the CFTC could do a bang-up job regulating these contracts if they are hedging instruments. But if they're gambling, the CFTC just doesn't have the necessary regulatory authorities.
It's up to courts to decide these contracts' status. 6/6
It's up to courts to decide these contracts' status. 6/6
Third, just because Kalshi has self-certified that a contract is a derivative, or even if the CFTC agrees that a contract is a derivative, doesn't mean it is. Courts decide. And if courts find a contract is not a commodity derivative, there is no way state law is preempted. 5/
December 22, 2025 at 1:43 PM
Third, just because Kalshi has self-certified that a contract is a derivative, or even if the CFTC agrees that a contract is a derivative, doesn't mean it is. Courts decide. And if courts find a contract is not a commodity derivative, there is no way state law is preempted. 5/
To be clear, it's not just me saying that these contracts are unlikely to be derivatives. Kalshi told the DC Circuit last year that "contracts relating to games—again, activities conducted for diversion or amusement—are unlikely to serve any 'commercial or hedging interest.'" 4/
December 22, 2025 at 1:43 PM
To be clear, it's not just me saying that these contracts are unlikely to be derivatives. Kalshi told the DC Circuit last year that "contracts relating to games—again, activities conducted for diversion or amusement—are unlikely to serve any 'commercial or hedging interest.'" 4/
Second, sports events are generally not commodities, because they're not associated with financial consequences. Kalshi offers a contract about whether an announcer says "what a catch" during a broadcast. There is no way this contract can be used to hedge. 3/
December 22, 2025 at 1:42 PM
Second, sports events are generally not commodities, because they're not associated with financial consequences. Kalshi offers a contract about whether an announcer says "what a catch" during a broadcast. There is no way this contract can be used to hedge. 3/