Enoch Kever is proud to maintain a strong relationship with the regulatory/administrative law community. EK founding member, Retired Justice Craig Enoch, had the honor of introducing his friend and former Winstead colleague, Hon. Linda Burgess, at her recent induction as Administrative Law Judge for the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings. Seen here with the judge, is ALJ Linda Burgess and her family.

Enoch Kever is proud to maintain a strong relationship with the regulatory/administrative law community. EK founding member, Retired Justice Craig Enoch, had the honor of introducing his friend and former Winstead colleague, Hon. Linda Burgess, at her recent induction as Administrative Law Judge for the Texas State Office of Administrative Hearings. Seen here with the judge, is ALJ Linda Burgess and her family.

Enoch Kever is proud to be recognized once again by Best Lawyers® and U.S. News & World Report in their annual “Best Law Firms” rankings.

The 2023 edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” recognizes the most elite firms across the nation, identified for their professional excellence with consistently positive feedback from clients and peers.

When Enoch Kever opened in 2011, Best Lawyers included us in its Best Law Firm rankings for our Appellate and Administrative/Regulatory practices. Over the subsequent decade, recognition by our peers in these rankings has expanded to:

  • Administrative/Regulatory Law
  • Appellate Practice
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Environmental Law
  • Litigation – Environmental
  • Employment Law – Management
  • Corporate Law

We congratulate our colleagues on their well deserved recognition.

“U.S. News is committed to providing consumers with the data and information they need to make some of life’s biggest decisions,” said Morgan Felchner, executive editor at U.S. News. “This commitment extends to the ‘Best Law Firms’ rankings, evaluating law firms in their efforts to bring important services to companies and individuals alike.”

The 2023 edition of U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” recognizes the most elite firms across the nation, identified for their professional excellence with consistently positive feedback from clients and peers.

The Texas Bar Journal recently published the third in a series of articles entitled “What Texas Lawyers Need to Know about the Texas Grievance Process”  co-authored by Mike Truesdale and Seana Willing, Chief Disciplinary Counsel for the State Bar of Texas (the articles are reposted on the State Bar of Texas website).

Part one addressed the classification and investigation of grievances;

Part two focused on the process by which grievances classified as complaints are litigated; and

Part three concentrated on common ethical violations and how they may be avoided.

Mike has served on the Commission for Lawyer Discipline since 2019 and has authored various other papers and presentations on the grievance process for the benefit of Texas lawyers. His paper “Most Common Violations Facing Texas Lawyers”  for the State Bar has been used at various CLE presentations across the state, and in September 2022, he and Seana co-authored “A Litigators Guide to the Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure” published in the Texas State Bar Litigation Section’s “News for the Bar.”  Mike also serves as a volunteer for the Texas Lawyer’s Assistance Program.

For more information, contact Mike at mtruesdale@enochkever.com.

Enoch Kever attorneys, Melissa Lorber and Shelby O’Brien, have been been voted by their peers as two of Austin’s Top Attorneys for 2022. Recognized for the third year in a row as trusted experts in Appellate Law by Austin Monthly magazine, their hard work and dedication have earned them the reputation of being elite professionals in Austin’s legal industry. Congratulations Melissa and Shelby!


Austin’s Top Attorneys 2022

Amy Saberian accepts the 2022 Pro Bono Leadership Award on behalf of Enoch Kever.

A foundational principle of our law firm is the understanding that our profession affords us not just the duty but the privilege of helping to foster a more just society. We were very proud on November 17, 2022, to receive from Texas Appleseed—a public interest justice center— along with Deloitte– Texas Appleseed’s 2022 Pro Bono Leadership Award at its annual Good Apple Dinner. The Good Apple Dinner honors leaders in the legal profession and other advocates whose contributions have improved the lives of Texans and their communities.

That evening Texas Appleseed also honored A. Shonn Brown and the late Clarence B. Brown III with the 2022 J. Chrys Dougherty Good Apple Award.


L to R: Carolyn Shellman, Katherine Mudge, Craig Enoch, Amy Prueger, Paula Lear, Sara Churchin, and Marla Broaddus

Enoch Kever has steadily worked to support Texas Appleseed’s Fair Financial Services project for the better part of the last decade. Lawyers from our law firm, led by Amy Saberian Prueger, have supported Texas Appleseed with legal research and writing in furtherance of that nonprofit’s work to build local protections against predatory payday and auto title lending practices. Our firm has drafted amicus briefs, assessed local ordinance approaches, and provided other support to Texas Appleseed staff. We are humbled to be recognized by Texas Appleseed as an invaluable partner working, over many years, to reform harmful lending practices and expand access to fair credit.

For more information: https://www.texasappleseed.org/good-apple-dinner-honorees


ENOCH KEVER has again been included among the Best Law Firms in America by its peers as it has been each year since the firm was founded in 2011. The firm has also received the highest praise for 13 attorneys.

Andy Kever remarked, “Craig and I were certainly gratified, when we opened the ENOCH KEVER doors 11 years ago, to have our new firm immediately acknowledged by our peers for the quality of the representation our clients receive. Even more gratifying is that, over the last decade, a growing number of our colleagues, and the firm as a whole, continue to be recognized for excellence in an ever-widening range of legal subjects.

While it was great to be included in these lists when we started the firm, Craig and I continue to be most proud that each year more and more members of the firm are honored by their peers.”

Supreme Court Confines EPA Rulemaking on Climate Change, Recognizes Major Questions Doctrine Potentially Impacting Other Administrative Rulemaking – by Paul Sarahan, Bill Moore, and Rod Johnson

  • United States Supreme Court found EPA’s Clean Power Plan unconstitutional because it exceeded the agency’s authority.
  • The Court applied the “Major Question Doctrine” because of the political and economic significance of EPA’s rules.
  • The Court determined that EPA’s approach attempted to extend its authority well beyond the scope of authority EPA had for years construed the statute to provide.
  • Congress could not have meant for EPA to use that statutory provision to impose CO2 reduction rules of such consequence and magnitude, said the Court, unless Congress had enacted a clear statement of such authority.

On June 30, 2022, the United States Supreme Court concluded its most recent term with the issuance of its opinion in West Virginia v. EPA.  In this case, the Court considered whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acted within the power granted to it by Congress under the Clean Air Act when it promulgated rules regulating existing power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in its effort to address climate change.  The challenged rules are commonly referred to as the Clean Power Plan, which sought to require three things: (1) “heat rate improvements” at coal-fired plants to burn coal more efficiently; (2) “generation shifting from higher-emitting to lower-emitting” producers of electricity; and (3) generation shifting from coal and gas-fired power plants to renewable energy generation alternatives, mainly wind and solar.[1]

The Court, in a 6-3 decision, held that the petitioners had standing to appeal even though EPA represented it does not intend to enforce the Clean Power Plan prior to promulgating and thus replacing the Clean Power Plan with a new rule.  The Court reasoned that “voluntary cessation does not moot a case unless it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” Here, said the Court, the Government “nowhere suggests that if this litigation is resolved in its favor it will not” reimpose emissions limits predicated on generation shifting.

Substantively, the Court further held that Congress did not grant EPA in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act[2] the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the EPA took in the Clean Power Plan.

The Court considered the substantive issue under the Major Questions Doctrine, a doctrine of recent vintage.  Stated succinctly, the Court found that it is not plausible that Congress meant Section 111(d) to give EPA authority to impose a carbon dioxide reduction mandate of “such magnitude and consequence,” especially since EPA had never before, in the long history of Section 111(d), asserted that the section confers upon the agency such authority.

The decision is interesting in large measure because of its application of, and Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion elucidating the Major Questions Doctrine.  That doctrine has served as a basis (although not always referenced as such) for the Court’s decisions in cases regarding the Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate or ban tobacco as a drug or device;[3] the Center for Disease Control’s authority to institute a nationwide eviction moratorium to address the COVID pandemic;[4] EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases as “air pollutants” down to the level of private individuals and their homes;[5] the authority of the Attorney General of the United States to rescind the license of any physician who prescribed a controlled substance for assisted suicide;[6] and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s authority to mandate COVID vaccines or weekly medical testing in workplaces.[7]

In West Virginia, the Court explained its application of the doctrine to the EPA’s Clean Power Plan rules:

Under our precedents, this is a major questions case.  In arguing that Section 111(d) empowers it to substantially restructure the American energy market, EPA “claim[ed] to discover in a long-extant statute an unheralded power” representing a “transformative expansion in [its] regulatory authority.”  Utility Air, 573 U. S., at 324.  It located that newfound power in the vague language of an “ancillary provision[]” of the Act, Whitman, 531 U. S., at 468, one that was designed to function as a gap filler and had rarely been used in the preceding decades.  And the Agency’s discovery allowed it to adopt a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously and repeatedly declined to enact itself.  Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 159–160; Gonzales, 546 U.S., at 267–268; Alabama Assn., 594 U. S., at ___, ___ (slip op., at 2, 8). Given these circumstances, there is every reason to “hesitate before concluding that Congress” meant to confer on EPA the authority it claims under Section 111(d). Brown & Williamson, 529 U. S., at 159–160.”[8]

Capping carbon dioxide emissions at a level that will force a nationwide transition away from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a sensible “solution to the crisis of the day.”  New York v. United States, 505 U. S. 144, 187 (1992).  But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in Section 111(d).  A decision of such magnitude and consequence rests with Congress itself, or an agency acting pursuant to a clear delegation from that representative body.[9]

Justice Gorsuch, in his concurring opinion, provided more detail on the nature and framework of the Major Questions Doctrine.  He stated:

To resolve today’s case the Court invokes the major questions doctrine.  Under that doctrine’s terms, administrative agencies must be able to point to “‘clear congressional authorization’” when they claim the power to make decisions of vast “‘economic and political significance.’”[10]

One of the Judiciary’s most solemn duties is to ensure that acts of Congress are applied in accordance with the Constitution in the cases that come before us.  To help fulfill that duty, courts have developed certain “clear-statement” rules.  These rules assume that, absent a clear statement otherwise, Congress means for its laws to operate in congruence with the Constitution rather than test its bounds.  In this way, these clear-statement rules help courts “act as faithful agents of the Constitution.” A. Barrett, Substantive Canons and Faithful Agency, 90 B. U. L. Rev. 109, 169(2010) (Barrett).[11]

First, this Court has indicated that the doctrine applies when an agency claims the power to resolve a matter of great “political significance. … Second, this Court has said that an agency must point to clear congressional authorization when it seeks to regulate “‘a significant portion of the American economy,’” or require “billions of dollars in spending” by private persons or entities. … Third, this Court has said that the major questions doctrine may apply when an agency seeks to “intrud[e] into an area that is the particular domain of state law.”[12]

… [T]he question becomes what qualifies as a clear congressional statement authorizing an agency’s action. … First, courts must look to the legislative provisions on which the agency seeks to rely “‘with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.’” … Second, courts may examine the age and focus of the statute the agency invokes in relation to the problem the agency seeks to address. … Third, courts may examine the agency’s past interpretations of the relevant statute. … Fourth, skepticism may be merited when there is a mismatch between an agency’s challenged action and its congressionally assigned mission and expertise.[13]

This case is important, first in defining the scope of EPA’s authority to regulate power plants under Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act.  The EPA, under both the Obama and Trump Administration, indicated that confining the regulation to “heat rate improvements” to burn coal more efficiently would result in only small reductions in carbon dioxide emissions,[14] reductions insufficient to address climate change.  As a consequence of West Virginia, if the federal government is to take effective steps to reign in carbon dioxide emissions, it now must be Congress who acts—EPA’s hands are now tied.

But perhaps most importantly, the case will be noted for its elucidation of the Major Questions Doctrine, most expressly set forth in Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence.  The doctrine is likely to be asserted in contesting federal agency rulemaking in a host of contexts, with challengers claiming that the rule or executive action has broad political or economic significance and the agency has exceeded the authority most plainly delegated to it by Congress.  Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence sets the stage and framework for these future cases, but they will be highly fact-specific, opening the door to the potential for outcome-oriented decision-making.

[1] See 80 Fed. Reg. 64662 (Oct. 23, 2015).

[2] See 42 U.S.C. § 7411(d).

[3] FDA v. Brown &Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120, 159 (2000).

[4] Alabama Assn. of Realtors v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 594 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (per curiam).

[5] Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 573 U. S. 302, 310 (2014).

[6] Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U. S. 243, 267 (2006).

[7] National Federation of Independent Business v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 595 U. S. ___, ___ (2022) (per curiam).

[8] Opinion, at 20.

[9] Id., at 31.

[10] Concurrence, at 1, citing the Opinion, at 17, 19.

[11] Concurrence, at 2.

[12] Id., at 9-11, omitting citations.

[13] Id., at 13-15, omitting citations.

[14] Opinion, at 8, 12.

Enoch Kever member, Amy Prueger, will be co-presenting, with Jadd F. Masso, Clark Hill PLLC, Dallas, at the 2022 Texas Association of Defense Counsel Summer Seminar in Big Sky Montana July 13-17.  The presentation is entitled “Care and Feeding of Rohrmoos: Attorney’s Fees in Texas”.

Marla BroaddusMarla Broaddus and Michael Truesdale to present Arbitration Update at UT Law CLE’s 32nd Annual Conference on State and Federal Appeals (June 16-17, 2022 in Austin, Texas) (paper co-authored by Zack Horton).


Arbitration Update will be an overview of recent state and federal appellate court decisions on hot topic issues like arbitrability, mandatory arbitration clauses, grounds for vacatur, and federal question jurisdiction under the FAA.

For more information, visit https://utcle.org/conferences/AP22

With over 400 Central Texas lawyers and judges in attendance, the Travis County Women Lawyers’ Foundation and the Travis County Women Lawyers’ Association held their Annual Grants and Awards Luncheon on May 6, 2022. The Fairmont Hotel in Austin, Texas served as the backdrop of the event where the Foundation presented $85,000 in grants to local nonprofits that provide free legal services and legal support services to women and children.

TCWLA formed the Foundation in 2002 to serve as the official fundraising and grant-awarding arm of TCWLA. The purpose of the Foundation, a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation, is to “support, promote, and encourage activities for the furtherance of justice and equal opportunity for women, families, and children.” The Foundation raises funds through its “Fellows” (attorneys who pledge an annual donation for 10 years), as well as through its Annual Luncheon and Raffle. This year, the Foundation raised a record amount through both sponsorships and raffle ticket sales at the Luncheon.

Shelby O’Brien, the TCWLF Chair, was recently interviewed by KXAN News regarding the Foundation’s important and inspiring work for the Travis County community. Click here to see the full KXAN story, or here to view the article in the July/August 2022 Edition of Austin Lawyer – Official Publication of the Austin Bar Association.

Congratulations to Shelby!