Todd Phillips
@tphillips.bsky.social
Banking and administrative law. Independent policy consultant. Future Robinson College. Fellow Roosevelt Institute. Fmr CAP, FDIC, ACUS.
January 21, 2026 at 4:48 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.
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.
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....
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 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/
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/
You can find the brief here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
I make three key arguments. First, Congress enacted the Commodity Exchange Act to regulate financial instruments usable to hedge financial risks. No financial risk, no derivative. No derivative, no federal preemption. 2/
I make three key arguments. First, Congress enacted the Commodity Exchange Act to regulate financial instruments usable to hedge financial risks. No financial risk, no derivative. No derivative, no federal preemption. 2/
December 22, 2025 at 1:41 PM
You can find the brief here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
I make three key arguments. First, Congress enacted the Commodity Exchange Act to regulate financial instruments usable to hedge financial risks. No financial risk, no derivative. No derivative, no federal preemption. 2/
I make three key arguments. First, Congress enacted the Commodity Exchange Act to regulate financial instruments usable to hedge financial risks. No financial risk, no derivative. No derivative, no federal preemption. 2/
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/
In my new article, "Restraining Acts," I examine the laws restricting banking in all 50 states. These laws generally prohibit nonbanks from receiving deposits and show a legislative preference that banks offer safekeeping of customer funds.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
December 12, 2025 at 4:57 PM
In my new article, "Restraining Acts," I examine the laws restricting banking in all 50 states. These laws generally prohibit nonbanks from receiving deposits and show a legislative preference that banks offer safekeeping of customer funds.
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
This is very cool to see up on the Supreme Court's website!
You can read @nicholasbednar.bsky.social and my brief in Trump v. Slaughter here: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
You can read @nicholasbednar.bsky.social and my brief in Trump v. Slaughter here: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
November 14, 2025 at 4:57 PM
This is very cool to see up on the Supreme Court's website!
You can read @nicholasbednar.bsky.social and my brief in Trump v. Slaughter here: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
You can read @nicholasbednar.bsky.social and my brief in Trump v. Slaughter here: www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
Politico really undersells how legally bonkers this argument is.
RIFing employees is agencies' individual decisions, but is pursuant to the President's inherent constitutional authority.
RIFing employees is agencies' individual decisions, but is pursuant to the President's inherent constitutional authority.
October 2, 2025 at 9:42 PM
Politico really undersells how legally bonkers this argument is.
RIFing employees is agencies' individual decisions, but is pursuant to the President's inherent constitutional authority.
RIFing employees is agencies' individual decisions, but is pursuant to the President's inherent constitutional authority.
To be clear, we need not choose between progressive policies and independent regulators; independence does not mean serving the interests of regulated industries over those of the public. It simply means being able to act without fear or favor.
September 29, 2025 at 5:09 PM
To be clear, we need not choose between progressive policies and independent regulators; independence does not mean serving the interests of regulated industries over those of the public. It simply means being able to act without fear or favor.
Very interesting that the Administration's application to the Supreme Court makes clear it is not challenging the constitutionality of the Fed's for cause removal protections. This won't be a chance to directly overrule Humphrey's.
September 18, 2025 at 4:42 PM
Very interesting that the Administration's application to the Supreme Court makes clear it is not challenging the constitutionality of the Fed's for cause removal protections. This won't be a chance to directly overrule Humphrey's.
I'm up in @bloomberglaw.com arguing that the recent push to reshape bank supervision, and Matters Requiring Attention in particular, "is the wrong remedy, resulting from [a] misdiagnosis of MRAs’ problems."
September 12, 2025 at 12:49 PM
I'm up in @bloomberglaw.com arguing that the recent push to reshape bank supervision, and Matters Requiring Attention in particular, "is the wrong remedy, resulting from [a] misdiagnosis of MRAs’ problems."
This WSJ op-ed is misleading. The Constitution gave Congress the right to regulate the value of money, and to regulate interstate commerce. There's no good reason a delegation of the first can have removal restrictions but the other (used for FTC, NLRB, etc) cannot.
www.wsj.com/opinion/trum...
www.wsj.com/opinion/trum...
September 5, 2025 at 1:38 PM
This WSJ op-ed is misleading. The Constitution gave Congress the right to regulate the value of money, and to regulate interstate commerce. There's no good reason a delegation of the first can have removal restrictions but the other (used for FTC, NLRB, etc) cannot.
www.wsj.com/opinion/trum...
www.wsj.com/opinion/trum...
September 3, 2025 at 12:41 PM
@warren.senate.gov rightly criticizes the OCC for failing to protect the stablecoin market from presidential interference.
If the OCC preferences stablecoin issuers with ties to the President, it would be opening up stablecoin holders, other issuers, and the real economy to real risks.
If the OCC preferences stablecoin issuers with ties to the President, it would be opening up stablecoin holders, other issuers, and the real economy to real risks.
September 3, 2025 at 12:40 PM
@warren.senate.gov rightly criticizes the OCC for failing to protect the stablecoin market from presidential interference.
If the OCC preferences stablecoin issuers with ties to the President, it would be opening up stablecoin holders, other issuers, and the real economy to real risks.
If the OCC preferences stablecoin issuers with ties to the President, it would be opening up stablecoin holders, other issuers, and the real economy to real risks.
DOJ says that "The President’s judgment about what constitutes 'cause' [for removing a Fed governor] is not subject to judicial second-guessing."
If that's true, then the Federal Reserve Act's removal clause offers absolutely zero protection.
That just cannot be the case.
If that's true, then the Federal Reserve Act's removal clause offers absolutely zero protection.
That just cannot be the case.
August 29, 2025 at 1:05 PM
DOJ says that "The President’s judgment about what constitutes 'cause' [for removing a Fed governor] is not subject to judicial second-guessing."
If that's true, then the Federal Reserve Act's removal clause offers absolutely zero protection.
That just cannot be the case.
If that's true, then the Federal Reserve Act's removal clause offers absolutely zero protection.
That just cannot be the case.
An excellent observation by Adam Levitin: No one would tolerate the IRS commissioner acting like Bill Pulte is.
Pulte is using his office to go after political opponents.
www.creditslips.org/creditslips/...
Pulte is using his office to go after political opponents.
www.creditslips.org/creditslips/...
August 20, 2025 at 11:32 PM
An excellent observation by Adam Levitin: No one would tolerate the IRS commissioner acting like Bill Pulte is.
Pulte is using his office to go after political opponents.
www.creditslips.org/creditslips/...
Pulte is using his office to go after political opponents.
www.creditslips.org/creditslips/...
Then, there are risks for competitors, who may have to compete on an unlevel playing field. Finally, there are risks to financial stability. If the presidentially-connected firm must quickly liquidate treasuries to meet redemption requests, it could disrupt the treasuries market. 7/
August 11, 2025 at 7:03 PM
Then, there are risks for competitors, who may have to compete on an unlevel playing field. Finally, there are risks to financial stability. If the presidentially-connected firm must quickly liquidate treasuries to meet redemption requests, it could disrupt the treasuries market. 7/
Who's at risk? First, customers of the presidentially-connected firm. Customers have no private right of action under the GENIUS Act, and if the OCC doesn't effectively regulate the firm, no one can. 6/
August 11, 2025 at 7:03 PM
Who's at risk? First, customers of the presidentially-connected firm. Customers have no private right of action under the GENIUS Act, and if the OCC doesn't effectively regulate the firm, no one can. 6/
The risks posed by presidential control of regulators with oversight of presidentially-connected firms are huge. The president could direct that the law not be enforced against his firms, or direct the law be overly-enforced against his competitors. 5/
August 11, 2025 at 7:02 PM
The risks posed by presidential control of regulators with oversight of presidentially-connected firms are huge. The president could direct that the law not be enforced against his firms, or direct the law be overly-enforced against his competitors. 5/