February 2026 Administrative Law Review: Procedure Becomes Merits

The first in-window anchor is “Mandatory Manufacturing Cost Survey Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,” issued by Agriculture Department. The second is “Self-Regulatory Organizations; the Options Clearing Corporation; Order Granting Petition for Review and Scheduling Filing of Statements Concerning Order Granting Accelerated Approval of Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Partial Amendment No. 1, by the Options Clearing Corporation Concerning Methodology To Allocate Clearing Fund Deposit Requirements Among Its Clearing Members To Better Align the Allocation With the Sizing of the Clearing Fund so Stress Based Risk Is Fairly Allotted to Market Participants That Expose OCC to Such Stress Risk,” issued by Securities and Exchange Commission. A separate published judicial anchor, “Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, Nos. 24-1287 and 25-250,” supplies primary case law from Supreme Court of the United States. Read together, they show the range of instruments, enforcement postures, and—where present—judicial authority that can shape this practice area during a single month.[1][2][3]

Neither a publication title nor an agency summary should be asked to carry more weight than its posture permits. A proposed action is not a final rule; a charging document states allegations; a settlement resolves a matter on negotiated terms; and a notice may initiate, explain, or complete only the procedure it identifies.[1][2]

An advance notice seeking input on a mandatory cost survey and an SEC order granting review of a self-regulatory-organization action illustrate early rulemaking and agency appellate process. The accompanying Supreme Court authority reinforces the separate need to test whether the asserted power fits the statute at all.[1][2][3]

USDA opened an advance rulemaking inquiry into methodology, verification, and reporting for mandatory dairy manufacturing-cost and product-yield surveys authorized by a 2025 statute; the agency has not yet selected a final collection design. The SEC, meanwhile, granted a petition for review and set a briefing schedule concerning accelerated approval of an OCC allocation rule, a procedural agency-appellate order that does not decide the merits.[1][2]

In Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump and the companion V.O.S. Selections litigation, the Supreme Court held that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. The Court vacated the judgment in Learning Resources and directed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction while affirming the Federal Circuit in V.O.S.; the separate procedural paths and the opinions’ differing rationales should not be collapsed into a single merits disposition.[3]

After the decline of reflexive deference, regulated parties should separate the court’s independent interpretation of law from record-based review of agency reasoning, procedure, factfinding, and discretion. The selected statutory, regulatory, or policy materials below provide background for recurring issues in this practice area; they may not govern every monthly development. Counsel must identify the operative authority for the particular facts before advising on scope, duties, or relief.[1][2][4][5]

The practical task is to create a record that presents the legal issue cleanly, supplies the relevant facts and alternatives, preserves objections, and identifies the relief available at the correct procedural stage.[1][4][5]

Monitor whether the agency is soliciting input, initiating rulemaking, acting finally, reconsidering, withdrawing, or responding to a petition. Reviewability, timing, exhaustion, and remedy may turn on that classification.[1][2]

This February 2026 edition is an issue-spotting record, not a representation that every relevant authority was captured. The accepted ingest covered Federal Register and DOJ materials for the calendar month; case-law discovery, historical eCFR changes, dockets, corporate filings, and state sources remain subject to the limitations stated on this page.[1][2]